Scientists design conceptual asteroid deflector and evaluate it against massive potential threat

March 15, 2018, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Deflecting the massive asteroid 101955 Bennu was the focus of recent research by a national planetary defense team. Bennu will make a very close approach to Earth on Sept. 25, 2135. Credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientists are part of a national planetary defense team that designed a conceptual spacecraft to deflect Earth-bound asteroids and evaluated whether it would be able to nudge a massive asteroid – which has a remote chance to hitting Earth in 2135 – off course. The design and case study are outlined in a paper published recently in Acta Astronautica.

The 9 meter-tall, 8.8-ton spacecraft – dubbed HAMMER (Hypervelocity Asteroid Mitigation Mission for Emergency Response vehicle) – features a modular design that would enable it to serve as either a kinetic impactor, essentially a battering ram, or as a transport vehicle for a nuclear device. Its possible mission: Deflect 101955 Bennu, a massive asteroid around 500 meters (more than 5 football fields) in diameter, weighing around 79 billion kilograms (1,664 times as heavy as the Titanic), circling the sun at around 63,000 mph. Based on observation data available, Bennu has a 1 in 2,700-chance of striking Earth on Sept. 25, 2135, and it is estimated that the kinetic energy of this impact would be equivalent to 1,200 megatons (80,000 times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb).

"The chance of an impact appears slim now, but the consequences would be dire," said Kirsten Howley, LLNL physicist and coauthor on the paper. "This study aims to help us shorten the response timeline when we do see a clear and present danger so we can have more options to deflect it. The ultimate goal is to be ready to protect life on Earth."

The effort is part of a national planetary defense collaboration between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which includes LLNL and Los Alamos National Lab. Of the three prongs of planetary defense, NASA is responsible for the first, detecting asteroids with enough time to mitigate the risk. The LLNL planetary defense team is the technical lead on the second prong, mitigation of the threat. The LLNL team also supports the third prong, emergency response.

The preferred approach to mitigating an asteroid threat would be to deflect it by ramming a kinetic impactor into it, delivering a gentle nudge large enough to slow it down, but not so large that the object breaks apart. This study helped quantify the threshold where a kinetic impactor would no longer be an effective deflection option. To evaluate this threshold, researchers focused on determining how many HAMMER impactors it would take to deflect Bennu.

The 8.8-ton conceptual HAMMER spacecraft (right) is designed to fit within the Delta IV Heavy, the world’s second highest-capacity launch vehicle in operation, surpassed only by SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket. Credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"The push you need to give it is very small if you deflect the asteroid 50 years out," Howley said. "But that far out, you're likely to think the percentage of being hit would be 1 percent. The probability of a Bennu impact may be 1 in 2,700 today, but that will almost certainly change – for better or worse – as we gather more data about its orbit. Delay is the greatest enemy of any asteroid deflection mission. That's why there's urgency in getting viable deflection platforms on the shelf today."

If the decision were to be made to embark on a mission to deflect Bennu, researchers estimate that it would take a minimum of 7.4 years before an impulse could be delivered to the -bound object. This includes the time it would take to build the spacecraft, plan the mission and travel to the object. Assuming the impactor successfully deposits its energy into the asteroid, slowing it down slightly, it would take many years for the small change in speed to accumulate into a sufficient change in trajectory.

The researchers evaluated a number of deflection scenarios in this study, ranging from launching 10 years before impact to 25 years before. In the 10-year scenarios, it was determined that it could take between 34 and 53 launches of the Delta IV Heavy rocket, each carrying a single HAMMER impactor, to make a Bennu-class asteroid miss the Earth. If there were 25 years lead time, that number could be reduced to 7 to 11 launches. The exact number would depend on the desired Earth-miss-distance and the impact conditions at the asteroid.

"When many launches are required for a successful deflection, the mission success becomes more difficult, due to the failure rate associated with each individual launch," said Megan Bruck Syal, LLNL physicist and coauthor on the paper. "If we only had ten years from launch, we would need to hit Bennu with hundreds of tons just to barely deflect it off of an Earth-impacting path, requiring dozens of successful launches and impact at the asteroid."

Just how large an asteroid could a single impactor deflect? Researchers determined that a single HAMMER impactor could deflect an object 90 meters in diameter by around 1.4 Earth radii with 10 years of lead time – from the time of launch to anticipated Earth impact. If they needed less of a deflection, around a quarter of an Earth radii, a single impactor could be effective on an object as large as 152 meters in diameter in this same scenario.

This 2013 plot by NASA JPL shows the orbits of potentially hazardous (more than 140 meters in diameter) near Earth objects that pass within 4.7 million miles of Earth’s orbit. Earth’s orbit is represented by the darker black circle. Credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

The paper ultimately concluded that using a single HAMMER spacecraft as a battering ram would prove inadequate for deflecting an object like Bennu. While recent simulations of nuclear deflection scenarios are not included in this paper – they will be included in a companion paper to be submitted for publication in the near future – the findings suggest that the nuclear option may be required with larger objects like Bennu. The nuclear approach carries the potential to deposit much more energy into an object like Bennu, causing increased change in speed and trajectory.

Unlike popular portrayals of a nuclear deflection mission – like the movie Armageddon – the nuclear deflection approach would consist of detonating a nuclear explosive some distance from the asteroid. This would flood one side of the asteroid with X-rays, vaporizing the surface, which would create propulsion as vaporized material is ejected from the . Unlike a kinetic impactor, the amount of energy deposited into an asteroid with a nuclear device could be tuned by adjusting how far it is from the asteroid when detonated.

Because Bennu regularly passes close enough to Earth for radar observations, researchers are able to estimate its orbit with enough accuracy to give a few decades warning, if it's bound to impact the Earth. This near-Earth Bennu fly-by happens every six years. But for other objects that do not regularly pass close enough to Earth for radar observations, much more uncertainty exists. If limited to telescopic observations, it's possible that researchers may not be 100 percent certain of an impact until less than a year before collision. In a scenario where there is too little time to mount an effective deflection mission, the last option may be robust disruption via nuclear explosive, though the window of opportunity would be very tight.

"Successful disruption requires ensuring that the asteroid pieces are sufficiently small and well-dispersed, so that they pose a much-reduced threat to the Earth," Syal said. "Disruption carried out as late as tens of days before impact can still be very effective in reducing the total damage felt by Earth. Previous work by our research group has shown that the impacting debris is reduced to less than 1% of its initial mass by disrupting the asteroid, even at these late times."

Bennu is one of more than 10,000 near Earth objects found by NASA so far, and scientists estimate that this is just a fraction of the objects that come with about 28 million miles of Earth. The good news is that most of these objects are much smaller than Bennu. NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies lists just over 2,500 near Earth objects discovered that are potentially as large as Bennu.

This research is the first of three case studies to be published, each examining different mitigation scenarios. The following case studies examine deflection of Didymos B, the target of NASA's DART mission, and a scaled-down Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko, which was visited by the European Space Agency's Rosetta mission in 2014 to 2016.

Explore further: Image: From the Earth, moon and beyond

More information: Brent W. Barbee et al. Options and uncertainties in planetary defense: Mission planning and vehicle design for flexible response, Acta Astronautica (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2017.10.021

Related Stories

Image: From the Earth, moon and beyond

January 3, 2018

The purpose of NASA's OSIRIS-REx spacecraft—Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, and Security–Regolith Explorer—is to map and return samples from asteroid Bennu, a carbon-rich hunk of rock that ...

Asteroid 2002 AJ129 to fly safely past Earth February 4

January 22, 2018

Asteroid 2002 AJ129 will make a close approach to Earth on Feb. 4, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. PST (4:30 p.m. EST / 21:30 UTC). At the time of closest approach, the asteroid will be no closer than 10 times the distance between Earth ...

To Bennu and back

September 16, 2016

NASA is launching a spacecraft to visit an asteroid… and return to tell the tale.

Recommended for you

Exoplanet stepping stones

November 20, 2018

Astronomers have gleaned some of the best data yet on the composition of a planet known as HR 8799c—a young giant gas planet about 7 times the mass of Jupiter that orbits its star every 200 years.

43 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NoLeads
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2018
really... is this idiocracy?
how about thinking in magnetic terms. possible deflections are allot more logical than this Hollywood blockbuster.
common guys. this is science, not the movies. use what we have. look into tesla's inventions.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2018
Build a laser.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2018
I think the image depicts very well how tiny the actual delivery vehicle is or how ineffectual a laser or even a nuclear warhead would be to something that massive. It isn't just as high as an empire state building but also as broad. And as deep. And not filled with mostly air.

The impulse of such an asteroid is enormous and that of the impactor -even at very high speeds- absolutely tiny by comparison.

The idea we could destroy something like this by 'blowing it up' is nothing but wishful thinking.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2018
a_p but, but, but!

Our comicbooks promised us! We could heroically push gigatons of mass away! No fuss, no bother.

However {oh oh! He's at again!} However, think of the spectacular fireworks of such a mass blown to bits across the entire sky. All that infall spread across a much larger area. Maybe an entire hemisphere of the Earth?

Pretty lights, from horizon to horizon. Until the atmosphere ignites.
dnatwork
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2018
Pretty lights, from horizon to horizon. Until the atmosphere ignites.


Exactly. The heat for the vaporization of the meteor bits would be as bad as an impact in many ways.

Why not a giant net of solar sails? Throw it out in the general path of the object like a giant spiderweb, let it catch somewhere, doesn't have to be the exact center, then start flying your solar sails to slowly pull the object toward the path you want. Eventually steer it into the sun or park it in an orbit suitable for space mining.
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (2) Mar 15, 2018
Yes, dnat. I have previously suggested smaller projects of using nanp-reinforced spider-webbing for collecting orbital trash. Using cheap, crowd-source funded & controlled drones. Maybe assembled in orbit out of the junk?

With experience and collected Space resources using larger webbing? Will be used like fishing trawlers.

It seems that many of the asteroids and comets, are rubble piles without either structural integrity or stability. Won't be able to 'push' those around. 'Pulling' those within a net is certainly no certainty but we work with what we got.

As for a monster mass such as 101955 Bennu?? Frankly & Ernestly, if we threw the entire Earth's military-industrial capacity and all out un-proven cutting edge technology at the menace?

Within the next decade? Maybe, just maybe! We might be able to divert it into a safer orbit.

However, sadly... We are the Planet of the Crazy Apes and we don't do sensible.

No way. No how. No siree!
ShotmanMaslo
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2018
I think the image depicts very well how tiny the actual delivery vehicle is or how ineffectual a laser or even a nuclear warhead would be to something that massive.

The idea we could destroy something like this by 'blowing it up' is nothing but wishful thinking.


Most nuclear warheads are rather small only because large ones are not of much use in a war. However if there is a killer asteroid approaching, then all that changes and assuming there is enough time, we could easily hit it with multiple >100 megaton warheads. Would definitely destroy a rock 500 meters in diameter.
Nik_2213
not rated yet Mar 16, 2018
For a reality check, look at NASA's 'Deep Impact' mission which whacked 100kg of solid copper (& ~270 kg probe) into its comet at ~10 km/s. That's gotta hurt ? No. Equivalent of ~ 5 tonnes of TNT kicked up a ~150 metre crater, barely more than a flea-bite.
First problem was the comet surface and sub-surface were freeze-dried unto crispy. You would need a succession of impactors to 'peel the crust' so a penetrator could get to a non-trivial depth. Second problem is you'd need to shatter the comet into chunks small enough to either burn up safely, or allow later targetting. Having city-killer fragments hide within a lumpy debris cloud would be bad. You might need to ablate the cloud with nukes before you could target the real hazards.
Stand-off methods that divert the track are much less messy, but need lots of lead-time...
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2018
Nukes in space... and so begins the PR campaign.

Anyone who thinks that we can't nudge a large body like this far enough in advance, to effectively and accurately change its trajectory, doesn't understand physics.

The LLNL PHYSICISTS who proposed the above concept, understand physics.

I'm surprised and embarrassed for the posters here who fail to appreciate this.
ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2018
Exactly. The heat for the vaporization of the meteor bits would be as bad as an impact in many ways.


Most of the danger of large asteroid impact is due to the impact itself, the shockwave, and most importantly, material such an impact would kick up into the atmosphere from the ground, altering climate for many years. Breaking up a large asteroid into smaller pieces could thus be a very effective defense. Large number of small impacts is likely a lot less dangerous than a single big one.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2018
I am wary of the suggestions above, Otto is correct, that we need to start as soon as possible. Developing existing solutions to fending off these dangers.

Even smaller asteroids, 1000 tons or less are going to be very dangerous to work with.

Perhaps with a small fleet of drones/robots. Experiments trying out the different recommendations. For safety run the trials on rocks and cometary material that are orbiting Sun-ward of the Earth's orbit? Anything fails or goes wrong? The mess can fall on Venus or into the Sun.
BobSage
not rated yet Mar 16, 2018
It makes zero sense to me to try to use current technology when we'll have so much more to work with in 100 years.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Mar 16, 2018
t makes zero sense to me to try to use current technology when we'll have so much more to work with in 100 years
But we may not have 100 years BOB. Best try to work with what we have already.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2018
Yes, what otto said.

"If not now... When? If not us... Who?"
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2018
Willis the fact fabricator is playing suckass. I hate suckass.

Evidence mounts...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2018
One of the points often lost in these discussions is that the earlier you apply delta-v, the more difference it makes. And it builds exponentially; the same delta-v applied at ten years before versus one year before has far more than ten times the effect.

As far as breaking such an impactor up, existing nuclear warheads are capable of vaporizing a large portion of such an object if they are allowed to be in contact or subsurface by the delivery method. So-called "bunker busters" might be the most effective method; this allows the largest delivery of energy into the object. But variations in the composition of the object would affect the optimal placement.

It's important to understand that the effects of a nuclear warhead on an object in space are considerably lessened at a distance by the lack of atmosphere. There will be no blast effect and much of the energy is lost if the warhead is not in direct contact with the object.
rrwillsj
2.5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2018
Right DS, a huge mass with enormous momentum will not pop like a pricked balloon.

If efforts to redirect, shatter and disperse the debris are too late? The original asteroid has a 2 in 3 chance of inflicting relatively survivable damage hitting in an ocean.

An expanding rockfall of debris could easily cover an entire hemisphere.

Before antibiotics, blood transfusions or sanitary precautions? Doctors often felt the best option for many patients, was for the Doctor to do nothing. Not making a bad situation worse with harmful treatments.

We may face that bleak possibility if we fail to prepare and act with the best available efficient means.

otto, my deer, I do not fear acknowledging when I think you are correct.

I do not fear criticizing your comments when I think you are wrong.

Unlike the perpetual adolescent altright fairytails, I do not fear admitting when I am in error.

Having a tantrum about a compliment is rather childish behavior even for you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Mar 17, 2018
otto, my deer, I do not fear acknowledging when I think you are correct
I do not need a fact fabricator and posturer (and suckup) to tell me when I know what I'm talking about thanks just the same.

You really think your opinions worth that much? Repeated follow up and fact checking proves that sadly they're pretty much worthless.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 17, 2018
One of the points often lost in these discussions is that the earlier you apply delta-v, the more difference it makes. And it builds exponentially; the same delta-v applied at ten years before versus one year before has far more than ten times the effect.
...

so... vaporize it by drilling into it 10 years earlier, ala "armageddon".
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2018
Nawww, @Whyde. We can't get guys to Mars, nothing like "Armageddon" is happening anytime soon. You'd need at absolute minimum a 10 Mt shot to break it up, and you want to keep in mind that the most powerful warheads on any rockets anybody has made are well under a megaton.

It takes a lot of lithium deuteride to make a 10-20 megaton range nuclear explosive. To get an idea check out the B41, the most powerful weapon ever deployed by the US. It weighs over 10,000 lbs (5 t). It's a 3-stage weapon. Yield was estimated at 25 Mt.

Keep in mind also that you'd need some kind of penetrator, and a very careful design because it has to withstand shock as it burrows into the bulk of the asteroid before detonation. You'd want to have several in reserve, and smaller devices prepared to deal with any large fragments.

This is a very expensive operation. I mean *very* expensive.
ShotmanMaslo
3.3 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2018
To get an idea check out the B41, the most powerful weapon ever deployed by the US. It weighs over 10,000 lbs (5 t). It's a 3-stage weapon. Yield was estimated at 25 Mt.


Most powerful nuclear bomb was russian Tsar bomba with 50 megatons of yield, and it was deliberately restricted . Bombs with yield in the hundreds of Mt are likely very much possible.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2018
@Shotman, yes, that's true- but the yield scales as less than the fuel, as efficiency is compromised. Launching 5 tonnes is already problematic; to get to 50 Mt you're going to need something over 20 tonnes and I doubt you're going to get that to happen. Not saying it absolutely can't be done but it's currently outside our reach by quite a way. And it's probably not needed, at least not for anything we're going to have to worry about for over a hundred years.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2018
"Edward Teller, a renowned nuclear physicist, theorized that a 10 gigaton (10,000 megaton) bomb could be made..."

and

"If the conditions are violent enough (enormous pressure, heat of 100 million °C) then helium will fuse into carbon via the triple alpha process. This releases even more energy than hydrogen fusion. If we could create an explosion violent enough to initiate helium fusion, we could well produce an explosive device with far higher destructive power than with hydrogen only."

and

"Antimatter catalyzed fission/fusion is a promising and theoretically well working idea"

etc

-I don't know why you guys insist on guessing about topics you must know have been thoroughly investigated by EXPERTS.

This is the internet.

So easy to make you look like dopes.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2018
ROTFLMAO! All of you people are morons! Just goes to show how the DM/BH sci-fi pseudoscience goes over so well here. You're all just a bunch of trekkie sci-fi groupies pontificating fanciful like about a bunch of faerie tales.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2018
ROTFLMAO! All of you people are morons! Just goes to show how the DM/BH sci-fi pseudoscience goes over so well here. You're all just a bunch of trekkie sci-fi groupies pontificating fanciful like about a bunch of faerie tales.
oh I get it you're this guy
https://youtu.be/JOw4LqyJKyg

Sparkles haha
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2018
Wow! I'm actually haveto agree with cantdrive85.

Damn.
doogsnova
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2018
2135?
Try 2029 or 2036.
And you are all clueless.
https://theyflybl...t-trump/
Date: January 29, 2018

Re: Avoiding the Earth-Apophis Asteroid Crash on 4/13/2029

From: Harry Lear (Pentagon and Saigon, Vietnam MACV HQ in SSD, ACSI, Special Security Detachment, Assistant Chief of Staff Intelligence, Top Secret Crypto EO NOFORN, other classified special access codes – 1965-67 US Army)

To: President Donald Trump, USA
... see link for the article
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2018
Two points doogsnova.

First: the title should be corrected to read.
Re: Unproven Suggestions to Attempt Avoiding the Earth-Apophis Asteroid Crash on 4/13/2029.

Second: Domeone is going to have to try to get the Bogus POTUS to read ANY position paper longer than a misspelled tweet. Then, someone, who has actual knowledge of astrophysics is going to have to try and explain the meaning of the headline to the senile buffoon. Cause that is as long as his deteriorating attention span can handle these days.

After the astrophysicist is dragged out of the Oval Office for the treasonous acts of sounding intelligent and laughing outloud at whatever nonsense Trump belches up?

Maybe they can get an Pentagon wonk with lots of stars on his shoulderboards to try and explain why the danger of imminent attack by the commie asteroid means the general should be given a cushy executive job with an aerospace weapons conglomerate.

- contd -

rrwillsj
Mar 18, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gculpex
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2018
Dogbreath
you made a serious error in your calculations.

you just stated a level of accuracy not even the lastest supercomputer can do.

Review your statements and fix your mistakes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2018
Perhaps the most prudent approach would be a manned cruiser equipped with a suite of tools - nukes, laser cannon, particle beams - that could remain on station for months, assaying the efforts and tweeking as needed.

Such a vessel could serve many useful purposes. Such as peaceful exploration and the spread of good will.
dbsi
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2018
Yes, and make sure you include a couple of powerful ion thrusters to install on the Asteroid, including equipment to harvest fuel on site. Start to puhs on either side of its poles. Use multiple thrusters distributed thrusters if the body is precessing. You could even make them mobile to re-adjust them to optimize for efficiency.

You have more control of the entire operation and using the money to develop very powerful thrusters will be even more of a benefit and also to go to an asteroid more qickly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2018
Let us not forget that any country that succeeds in mastering this tech first will hold a distinct strategic advantage, because rocks can be directed toward something just as easily as away from it.

"National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Nuclear Security Administration, which includes LLNL and Los Alamos National Lab."

-All originally established as military entities, and they continue to function as such.

Asteroid deflection will be the enduring threat in the future that nuclear proliferation is today. That is why it behooves the west to be the first to develop an overwhelming capability in it.

On-station cruisers can defend the rocks they are shepherding from any hostile attempts to steer them toward western targets.

This kind of makes armed military space fleets inevitable. Which is great because technology makes its greatest strides during conflict.

A cold war in space should make human proliferation throughout the system easy.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2018
The radioactive rain of small fragments would cover much larger area after then and it would do more damage than single large impactor.


Are you just making this stuff up? Large asteroids are dangerous primarily because of the energy of their impact and the resulting shock wave. Blowing such asteroid into fragments is a great way to significantly reduce the damage. It would not be very radioactive because nuclear explosions do not generate much long lived radiation and especially large fusion bombs tend to be very clean per megaton.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2018
Uhh, fellas? Please triple-check at the door, your enthusiasm to play Dr. Strangelove, with everybody else's lives at stake!

It doesn't matter if you detonate a gigaton of space mountain into a gigaton of pebbles. What part of a gigaton of anything falling through the atmosphere, onto your pointy little head, do you not understand?
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2018
It doesn't matter if you detonate a gigaton of space mountain into a gigaton of pebbles. What part of a gigaton of anything falling through the atmosphere, onto your pointy little head, do you not understand?


What part of "it is the impact itself that is the main danger" do you not understand? Gigatons of pebbles mostly burn up in the atmosphere because of their much, much larger surface area. They would hardly even impact the ground. A single large asteroid on the other hand will impact the ground and make a shockwave that causes destruction on a global scale and throws up gigatons of dirt into the atmosphere.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2018

The idea we could destroy something like this by 'blowing it up' is nothing but wishful thinking.


To return to this, I actually found a study that says we can blow a 500 meter asteroid up with a mere 1 megaton.

http://adsabs.har...23D1556W
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2018
The people were always quite fast in destruction of threat by milliary force
And why do people always equate nukes with the military? Explosives are explosives. We have been using them for millenia for all sorts of civilian applications.

Operation plowshare was initiated specifically to explore civilian uses for nuclear explosives. Soviets did the same. They even used a nuke to cap a runaway methane well.

We'll be using them off-planet for all sorts of things.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Mar 19, 2018
willis opines
It doesn't matter if you detonate a gigaton of space mountain into a gigaton of pebbles. What part of a gigaton of anything falling through the atmosphere, onto your pointy little head, do you not understand?
-as if hes actually an engineer or something. Ever blow on the surface of your herb tea willis? Notice how the shockwave of your stinky breath moves the fluid?

Shockwaves can move all sorts of unsolid things.

Man I really hate this noob.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2018
For those of you who confuse a gigaton of massed pebbles smashing it's way through the atmosphere at tens of thousands of miles per hour. With the innocuous sparklers of meteor showers you are use to seeing.

Check out the videos of pyroclastic surge and flammagenitus.

That will give your limited imaginations an ant-size view of the kinda phenomena I'm talking about.

And otto? You are such a charming breath of halitosis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Mar 20, 2018
And otto? You are such a charming breath of halitosis
-and youre a font of made-up bullshit.

Forgive me if I continue to illuminate the fact?
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2018
otto not only do you fail to illuminate... You even fail to reflect.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Mar 20, 2018
otto not only do you fail to illuminate... You even fail to reflect.
Willis you have yet to defend yourself with anything Ive called you on.

This is because they are things you made up and pretend they are facts.

You think people here need to tolerate this lying behavior?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.