Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Checking login status…

USERNAME:

PASSWORD:

Logging in…

Logged in as:
.
Logging out…
Inbox My Account Log Out


Forum Topic: Nuke From Space?

(343 views • 22 replies)

This topic is 1 page long.

<< < > >>
None

Dumbass-Rhapsody

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:19 PM

Dumbass-Rhapsody LIGHT LEVEL 02

Sign-Up: 10/26/05

Posts: 106

I've been thinking.

Let's say you take a Hydrogen Bomb on a space shuttle. Attached to the back are rockets, to propell it from orbit. Soaring at high speeds through the atmosphere, it then hits the earth. Will the explosion resulting be much larger?


None

Abomination

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:22 PM

Abomination LIGHT LEVEL 17

Sign-Up: 04/06/06

Posts: 1,685

No, becouse it'll blow up in the atmosphere.


None

Masso

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:23 PM

Masso EVIL LEVEL 13

Sign-Up: 03/05/04

Posts: 1,616

At 8/19/06 08:22 PM, -Abomination- wrote: No, becouse it'll blow up in the atmosphere.

Thus destroy parts of the atmosphere, causing who knows what.


None

Electric-Bla

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:24 PM

Electric-Bla LIGHT LEVEL 16

Sign-Up: 12/30/05

Posts: 5,635

Um... no. Thats not how it works. It will actually do less damage because of the bounceback stuff that happens when you detonate in the air.

"Why universe hate Waspinator?!"
Here's a trio of webcomics that you should read! :3 :P :O

BBS Signature

None

Trendwhore

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:25 PM

Trendwhore NEUTRAL LEVEL 07

Sign-Up: 02/16/06

Posts: 2,659

At 8/19/06 08:23 PM, Masso wrote:
At 8/19/06 08:22 PM, -Abomination- wrote: No, becouse it'll blow up in the atmosphere.
Thus destroy parts of the atmosphere, causing who knows what.

Causing Al Gore to blame it on global warming.


None

Legionnaire-X

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:26 PM

Legionnaire-X LIGHT LEVEL 29

Sign-Up: 07/25/04

Posts: 17,124

While you're up there shoot em at the sun and see what happens O____o

There's the Hydra.
Slice his throat!

BBS Signature

None

RacistBassist

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:28 PM

RacistBassist NEUTRAL LEVEL 16

Sign-Up: 06/14/04

Posts: 11,023

At 8/19/06 08:19 PM, Dumbass_Rhapsody wrote: I've been thinking.

Let's say you take a Hydrogen Bomb on a space shuttle. Attached to the back are rockets, to propell it from orbit. Soaring at high speeds through the atmosphere, it then hits the earth. Will the explosion resulting be much larger?

wait, why would you spend all that money to produce a space shuttle, launch it into orbit, just to launch a nuke? a surface based nuke would be just as effective because why would you even need that big of explosion

RacistBassist for Mod '07

BBS Signature

None

DrWurm

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:28 PM

DrWurm NEUTRAL LEVEL 08

Sign-Up: 01/16/05

Posts: 2,155

At 8/19/06 08:24 PM, Electric_Bla wrote: Um... no. Thats not how it works. It will actually do less damage because of the bounceback stuff that happens when you detonate in the air.

yeah, it would go underground, then explode. Actually, it probably wouldn't detonate at all. Not enough time to trigger before it's sheared apart from the impact.


None

RedScorpion

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:32 PM

RedScorpion LIGHT LEVEL 13

Sign-Up: 09/13/03

Posts: 2,227

Apparently no one here has ANY knowledge about how it works.

Here.

Nuke From Space?


None

RedScorpion

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:35 PM

RedScorpion LIGHT LEVEL 13

Sign-Up: 09/13/03

Posts: 2,227

At 8/19/06 08:19 PM, Dumbass_Rhapsody wrote: I've been thinking.

Let's say you take a Hydrogen Bomb on a space shuttle. Attached to the back are rockets, to propell it from orbit. Soaring at high speeds through the atmosphere, it then hits the earth. Will the explosion resulting be much larger?

Just so you know, the speed, or velocity it is travelling at, does not affect the explosion size. It would only make it reach it's target faster, and harder to hit with ABM systems.


Shouting

X-Gary-Gigax-X

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:36 PM

X-Gary-Gigax-X NEUTRAL LEVEL 20

Sign-Up: 12/03/05

Posts: 3,742

Lot of radiation and "bad stuff" everywhere.

hsgeisdhesduenskalwidmfjrjdjfidjmfm ekdmsjfjjfjd

BBS Signature

None

Rakinite

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:37 PM

Rakinite EVIL LEVEL 10

Sign-Up: 05/15/06

Posts: 57

If you're going to launch missles into space, you need to use massive re-entry speeds to pierce some armor, and at that rate, you wouldn't need the uncontrolled fusion reaction to cause massive damage. Just imagine 100 superheated rods crashing into buildings at hypersonic speeds, wrecking the buildings and possibly igniting them...


None

DashDingo

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:39 PM

DashDingo EVIL LEVEL 14

Sign-Up: 06/25/04

Posts: 4,963

Dropping it from a tall height and hitting it with a hammer will make the same explosion.


None

TheThing

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:39 PM

TheThing NEUTRAL LEVEL 28

Sign-Up: 11/27/05

Posts: 5,271

At 8/19/06 08:36 PM, X_Gary_Gigax_X wrote: Lot of radiation and "bad stuff" everywhere.

no, a hydrogen bomb doesnt release radiation. what will happen is, if far enough in outer space, it will bun up in the atomosphere.

if it somehow survives, when it lands, it will have the same effect.


None

Novelty

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:41 PM

Novelty NEUTRAL LEVEL 15

Sign-Up: 07/05/06

Posts: 3,835

Why would you want to know? Its not like you're gona attempt it or anything.


None

mightypotato

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:43 PM

mightypotato LIGHT LEVEL 24

Sign-Up: 03/11/02

Posts: 10,777

At 8/19/06 08:35 PM, RedScorpion wrote: Just so you know, the speed, or velocity it is travelling at, does not affect the explosion size. It would only make it reach it's target faster, and harder to hit with ABM systems.

Yep. Just like any bomb, the velocity that it carries when it reaches its target has no bearing on the size of the explosion. Its all a property of how much explosive material is in the bomb. A 10 megaton bomb for example will explode with the same force if accidentally exploded on the ground as if it were launched from orbit.

I was actually kind of hoping this topic would be about "Aliens". But, I guess I've got to keep on dreaming.

Just nuke the damn thing from orbit man. Game over man...game over.

None

Rabid-Echidna

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 08:44 PM

Rabid-Echidna LIGHT LEVEL 40

Sign-Up: 09/10/03

Posts: 13,210

At 8/19/06 08:37 PM, Rakinite wrote:
If you're going to launch missles into space, you need to use massive re-entry speeds to pierce some armor, and at that rate, you wouldn't need the uncontrolled fusion reaction to cause massive damage. Just imagine 100 superheated rods crashing into buildings at hypersonic speeds, wrecking the buildings and possibly igniting them...

Did you seriously just say that throwing a bunch of hot metal at people from outer space is as effective as a hydrogen bomb?

Suddenly I find that all those negative thoughts creeping around in the back of my head have been shot to the front in a blaze of unwelcomed glory.

BBS Signature

Happy

RedScorpion

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 09:03 PM

RedScorpion LIGHT LEVEL 13

Sign-Up: 09/13/03

Posts: 2,227

At 8/19/06 08:43 PM, mighty_potato wrote: Yep. Just like any bomb, the velocity that it carries when it reaches its target has no bearing on the size of the explosion. Its all a property of how much explosive material is in the bomb. A 10 megaton bomb for example will explode with the same force if accidentally exploded on the ground as if it were launched from orbit.

Yeah, very true. : )

The only difference in size/explosion effect that I can think of, is at what attitude it was detonated at. An airburst would be devastating along the surface, and have a slighty wider radius of effect (less obstruction from ground). A ground burst can pierce into the ground, and destroy missile silos and other heavy fortifications and stuff.

That's like the only case where it would be different (with the same bomb, of course).

And then there's underground explosions... Broken Arrow! Hahhhhhh!

:D

Just nuke the damn thing from orbit man. Game over man...game over.

Lol...


None

CreampieSuprise

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 09:09 PM

CreampieSuprise LIGHT LEVEL 19

Sign-Up: 01/04/06

Posts: 5,875

At 8/19/06 08:32 PM, RedScorpion wrote: Apparently no one here has ANY knowledge about how it works.

Here.

That was most likely the best post of the thread... very informative actually.

BBS Signature

None

Dumbass-Rhapsody

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 09:15 PM

Dumbass-Rhapsody LIGHT LEVEL 02

Sign-Up: 10/26/05

Posts: 106

I don't understand how it won't make a difference. A meteorite about the same size as a large nuke, hitting the earth at super-sonic speeds would make a big explosion.

But if that meteorite was packed with explosives, as the nuke is, wouldnt it create a much larger explosion?


None

RedScorpion

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 10:03 PM

RedScorpion LIGHT LEVEL 13

Sign-Up: 09/13/03

Posts: 2,227

At 8/19/06 09:09 PM, Slayder wrote: That was most likely the best post of the thread... very informative actually.

Thanks! : )

At 8/19/06 09:15 PM, Dumbass_Rhapsody wrote: I don't understand how it won't make a difference. A meteorite about the same size as a large nuke, hitting the earth at super-sonic speeds would make a big explosion.

Let's do some comparitive analysis.

Meteorite - "There a 4 kg stone chondrite [2] crashed through a roof and hit Ann Hodges in her living room after it bounced off her radio. She was badly bruised."

Source.

"The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions. An unreflected spherical alpha-phase critical mass of Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across.

A single critical mass cannot cause an explosion however since it does not cause fission multiplication, somewhat more than a critical mass is required for that. But it does not take much more than a single critical mass to cause significant explosions. As little an excess as 10% (1.1 critical masses) can produce explosions of 10-20 tons. This low yield seems trivial compared to weapons with yields in the kilotons or megatons, but it is actually far more dangerous than conventional explosives of equivalent yield due to the intense radiation emitted."

The damage from a 10.5 Kg weapon produces a fatal distribution of radiation within a diameter of 1 Km from it's burst point, with 10-20 tons of force being distributed in it's inmmediate area. Much like a blue whale falling on top of you.

Source

Most catastrophic explosions created by meteorites, are done so with meteors that can weigh several tens-of-millions of tons, which are able to withstand the rigor of re-entry. The common major craters that you may seen are caused by these multi-million ton meteorites. The lower ton range (1000+ kg) may be able to reach the surface, but is greatly eroded from it's travel. So, it would greater be vapourized, or do very minor damage. (Especially compared to a nuke)

Despite the large appearance of a full ICBM, the only part that decends upon re-entry is the very tip of the missile, which houses the warhead. The other parts are there to burst it into orbit, and into alignment with the target. The warhead itself may weigh 100 kg, 200 kg, 500 kg, sometimes higher. It's simply the plutonium or uranium, along with the detonating devices and other sensors.

Small example - "the W-47 RV on the U.S. Polaris A-1 SLBM (1961) weighs 408 kg and has a yield of 800- kilotons; the bomb itself weighs only 275 kg."

But if that meteorite was packed with explosives, as the nuke is, wouldnt it create a much larger explosion?

Yes. But you must be cautioned that conventional explosives and nuclear fission is very much different.

Have a look at the Halifax Explosion.

223 tonnes benzol
56 tonnes nitrocellulose
1602 tonnes wet picric acid
544 tonnes dry picric acid (highly explosive, and extremely sensitive to shock)
227 tonnes TNT

It carried massive stores of explosives - over 2500 tonnes. 2.5 square kilometers was levelled, and shockwaves carried it as far as 100 km. It produced a force of 2.9 kilotons. It was the largest explosion in the world before the A-bomb.

But, a 275 kg nuclear bomb, can produce 800 kilotons of destructive force.

Velocity would account for a miniscule part of the total damage, perhaps 0.000001% - as the explosion quickly sweeps any ground, any damage that it did occur. The sensors in the warhead indicate it to detonate as soon as it reaches a certain attitude, or when it reaches the ground, and then the fission process takes not even a portion of a second. It's like the nose of the warhead is a button, and once it's pressed, it explodes immediately. The process happens very quickly.

A nuclear weapon is not like a meteor.

Gawd, I wrote too much...

None

Dumbass-Rhapsody

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 10:25 PM

Dumbass-Rhapsody LIGHT LEVEL 02

Sign-Up: 10/26/05

Posts: 106

Thanks for clearing that up, Scorpion.

But let's look at one final scenario.

A large piece of rock was blown off of a planet, after the said planet exploded (the reason doesnt matter) The rock is about 30 metres in diameter.

This rock is travelling through space at speeds well over twice the speed of sound, with nothing in it's way. The meteorite is composed of about 70% uranium.
The meteorite enters the thermosphere and accelerates to greater speed.

At impact, the said meteorite hits a solid rock surface. Would this impact generate enough heat to cause nuclear fission? Therefore blowing up this meteor, resulting in an explosion similar to that of a nuclear bomb?


None

CleverNickname

Reply To Post Reply & Quote

Posted at: 8/19/06 10:27 PM

CleverNickname LIGHT LEVEL 13

Sign-Up: 05/28/05

Posts: 7,358

At 8/19/06 08:25 PM, Trendwhore wrote:
Causing Al Gore to blame it on global warming.

lawl.

Win.


All times are Eastern Daylight Time (GMT -4) | Current Time: 03:11 AM

<< Back

This topic is 1 page long.

<< < > >>
You need a Grounds Gold Account to post on the NG BBS! If you don't have one, click here to sign up now! It's fast, free, and easy — and opens up tons of great NG features!