User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:15:04 AM EDT
In space, noone can hear you scream.
On earth, most nukes, particularly big ones, kill you with blast and burns at ranges far beyond the range where prompt radiation has any immediate effect. Only 5% of the yield effect is prompt ionization radiation for nukes in atmo. The most efficient warhead we ever made, Mk41 25MT, will give you some 2nd/3rd degree burns at 25 miles, will break windows, but your radiation dose will be less than a dental x-ray. In space, nukes primarily yield ionization radiation, perhaps 85% of the yield. There is no atmosphere for conversion to blast or thermal pulse. In space, same warhead, same range, you (in a spacesuit) are instantly killed by radiation. In fact, it could probably instantly incapacitate astronauts inside the space station at 200 miles. (10,000+ REM). It could probably give a lethal (not instant) dose at 1000mi. Makes you rethink all the space scifi you ever watched. Don't even have to be close to kill everyone on a ship!  This chart is for a weapon 1/1250th the yield of the Mk41 described above Nuclear weapons are incredible devices. You can read rather remarkable things, even about regimes where most of the information is unknown, theoretical, or speculation because the data are classified. But it is interesting what you can find when you read and do some math.  Rainbow bombs indeed.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:23:17 AM EDT
[#1]
But I imagine in space all they have is radiation. There is no blast, because there is nothing to carry the blast or pressure wave?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:26:33 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But I imagine in space all they have is radiation. There is no blast, because there is nothing to carry the blast or pressure wave? I wonder how, if at all, the lack of pressure effects the physics going on after the reaction starts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:26:39 AM EDT
[#3]
So flying the space ship to the mother ship in Independence Day was a suicide mission.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:34:08 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So flying the space ship to the mother ship in Independence Day was a suicide mission. That ship had atmosphere in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:35:29 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But I imagine in space all they have is radiation. There is no blast, because there is nothing to carry the blast or pressure wave? Yes. Exactly. As the post says, 85% of the yield is prompt radiation instead of 5%. In atmo, the atmo asborbs the radiation, heating up and reradiating as a thermal pulse and overpressure wave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:39:44 AM EDT
[#6]
Well atleast we know why spaceships get so close for movie fights (as I'm sure they understand physics). SOP simply becomes get within the range no one can use nukes without destroying themselves then fire lasers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:40:09 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder how, if at all, the lack of pressure effects the physics going on after the reaction starts. Almost none. In weapons design, you can use a tamper like lead or uranium to keep things supercritical longer by inertially dampening the speed of expansion of the pit. Bonus yield from neutron reflection and fissioning the tamper if it is uranium. Uranium is almost 15,000 times denser than air. Going from air to vacuum makes little difference in sustaining a supercritical state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:43:06 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well atleast we know why spaceships get so close for movie fights (as I'm sure they understand physics). SOP simply becomes get within the range no one can use nukes without destroying themselves then fire lasers. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:43:49 AM EDT
[#9]
Inverse square law laughs in your general direction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 12:50:01 AM EDT
[#10]
The more you know the more you wish you knew less.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 1:05:58 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: In space, same warhead, same range, you (in a spacesuit) are instantly killed by radiation. In fact, it could probably instantly incapacitate astronauts inside the space station at 200 miles. (10,000+ REM). It could probably give a lethal (not instant) dose at 1000mi. So you're saying that it would still be at LD levels after radiating outwards in a spherical pattern for 1000mi??? The maths don't sound right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 1:14:26 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you're saying that it would still be at LD levels after radiating outwards in a spherical pattern for 1000mi??? The maths don't sound right. I was mentally guestimating... but at 200mi it would probably be instant death or at least incapacitation by which I actually mean >>10,000REM (100Gy). I was saying it is still lethal (but not instant) at 1000mi, so in my head I meant LD50-30 which is ~5Gy, so less than 1/20th the dose at 5x the distance, so that tracks on the maths. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 1:23:41 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Inverse square law laughs in your general direction. He showed the curves for a ~20kt device. Then began discussing a device 1000-ish times greater. Even with the square root as a multiplier, that's a big hot zone. Now, how shielding affects those kind of prompt radiation flux numbers, is another question. "I have looked upon the cockatrice, and survived." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 1:24:38 AM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 1:26:33 AM EDT
[#15]
So, nukes ARE effective against super advanced aliens.
No wonder they have infiltrated us via the Democratic party and are taking over politically instead of just trying to duke it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 1:45:38 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He showed the curves for a ~20kt device. Then began discussing a device 1000-ish times greater. Even with the square root as a multiplier, that's a big hot zone. Now, how shielding affects those kind of prompt radiation flux numbers, is another question. Scaled appropriately. I'm not L-X but I have spent 35 years studying and considering the effects of nuclear weapons. I am not a SME, but I know a lot for someone who never worked with weapons/clearance. The shielding on the ISS (in my example) is really minimal. Maybe very generously PF 1.4 (blocking less than 30% of radiation). We keep our astronauts safe from solar radiation by using an orbit relatively well protected by the Earth's magnetic field. If you look at something like battleship armor, you have a PF of probably around 10. That is heavy. There is a reason we were going to kill Soviet tank formations with neutrons from nukes (ERWs). If you have an interstellar capable spaceship, though, you probably have pretty solid shielding, at least on one end of the ship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 8:53:59 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But I imagine in space all they have is radiation. There is no blast, because there is nothing to carry the blast or pressure wave?  What if We Nuke the Moon? There's an interesting balance of what happens. Nothing is there to carry the pressure wave, but there is also nothing pushing back from the explosion going outward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2023 9:36:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Khan had it figured out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 8:19:28 AM EDT
[#19]
So with it being all radiation, e person could focus/direct the radiation in one direction vs 360 degreee spherical spread, a person could really increase the range and lethality.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 8:28:30 AM EDT
[#20]
It's wild seeing how fast explosions propagate in that environment.
just watch the last starship launch and the subsequent booster explosion for example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 8:37:17 AM EDT
[#21]
If the nuke detonates in space, wouldn't the result be a spherical release?
As such, wouldn't distance be the dilution? It sounds like there is an assumption that all the radiation released is travelling at the target in a focus manner. I don't feel like doing the math, but what is the radiation output of the Sun, as calculated in bomb terms for ionizing radiation and the distance to Earth?. How does this compare to the statements in the article? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 8:55:09 AM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:02:37 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Inverse square law laughs in your general direction. This… |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:09:47 AM EDT
[#24]
One solar flare will produce a billion times more radiation than a nuclear blast in space. Yet we are still here and not a pile of ash. What a wonderful planet we have.
https://new.nsf.gov/news/laboratory-solar-flares-reveal-clues-bursts-high#:~:text=The%20loops%20usually%20grow%20and,is%20called%20a%20solar%20flare |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:15:20 AM EDT
[#25]
Nuclear is the way of the future. Keep digging OP
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:19:49 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Scaled appropriately. I'm not L-X but I have spent 35 years studying and considering the effects of nuclear weapons. I am not a SME, but I know a lot for someone who never worked with weapons/clearance. The shielding on the ISS (in my example) is really minimal. Maybe very generously PF 1.4 (blocking less than 30% of radiation). We keep our astronauts safe from solar radiation by using an orbit relatively well protected by the Earth's magnetic field. If you look at something like battleship armor, you have a PF of probably around 10. That is heavy. There is a reason we were going to kill Soviet tank formations with neutrons from nukes (ERWs). If you have an interstellar capable spaceship, though, you probably have pretty solid shielding, at least on one end of the ship. Polyethylene or water. You want a lot of hydrogen in the stuff for shielding. Prevents nasty secondaries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:22:48 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nuclear is the way of the future. Keep digging OP If we could ever figure out a cheap way to intercept radiation from the sun in space and convert it to electricity the whole planet would be energy-free. Once it enters our atmosphere it is greatly weakened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:25:15 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was mentally guestimating... but at 200mi it would probably be instant death or at least incapacitation by which I actually mean >>10,000REM (100Gy). I was saying it is still lethal (but not instant) at 1000mi, so in my head I meant LD50-30 which is ~5Gy, so less than 1/20th the dose at 5x the distance, so that tracks on the maths. 1.3 rem @ 1,000 miles |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:28:31 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If we could ever figure out a cheap way to intercept radiation from the sun in space and convert it to electricity the whole planet would be energy-free. Once it enters our atmosphere it is greatly weakened. Could we put solar panels in space and run an extension cord down to the ground? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:36:05 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1.3 rem @ 1,000 miles Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I was mentally guestimating... but at 200mi it would probably be instant death or at least incapacitation by which I actually mean >>10,000REM (100Gy). I was saying it is still lethal (but not instant) at 1000mi, so in my head I meant LD50-30 which is ~5Gy, so less than 1/20th the dose at 5x the distance, so that tracks on the maths. 1.3 rem @ 1,000 miles What? Let's pick 12MREM Inverse Square: 200^2 / 1000^2 * 12000 = 500REM |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:41:26 AM EDT
[#31]
Yea but what you miss is that everything is really really really far a way in space. Those gps satellites are at an altitude of 26,0000 miles.
That's only 10% as far as the moon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:46:24 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What? Let's pick 12MREM Inverse Square: 200^2 / 1000^2 * 12000 = 500REM It squares with each doubling of distance. 12,000rem @ 200 miles 109.5rem @ 400 miles 10.4rem @ 600 miles 3.2rem @ 800 miles 1.7rem @ 1,000 miles ETA- I may be retarded now that there has been coffee |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:50:48 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the nuke detonates in space, wouldn't the result be a spherical release? As such, wouldn't distance be the dilution? It sounds like there is an assumption that all the radiation released is travelling at the target in a focus manner. I don't feel like doing the math, but what is the radiation output of the Sun, as calculated in bomb terms for ionizing radiation and the distance to Earth?. How does this compare to the statements in the article? Yes. Isotropic vs beaming. One reason why GRBs are such bad news, as the generation mechanism tends to collimate them into a narrowly focused bipolar beam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 9:59:14 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yea but what you miss is that everything is really really really far a way in space. Those gps satellites are at an altitude of 26,0000 miles. That's only 10% as far as the moon. Nope, GPS sats are in MEO about 12,500 miles in altitude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 10:01:00 AM EDT
[#35]
this is a neat thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 10:01:12 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So with it being all radiation, e person could focus/direct the radiation in one direction vs 360 degreee spherical spread, a person could really increase the range and lethality. ETA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob During the Pascal-B nuclear test, of August 1957,a 900-kilogram (2,000 lb) steel plate cap (a piece of armor plate) was welded over the borehole to contain the nuclear blast even though Brownlee predicted it would not work. When Pascal-B was detonated, the blast went straight up the test shaft, launching the cap into the atmosphere at a speed of more than 66 km/s (41 mi/s; 240,000 km/h; 150,000 mph). The plate was never found. Scientists believe compression heating caused the cap to vaporize as it sped through the atmosphere [not a problem for a space-to-space weapon]. A high-speed camera, which took one frame per millisecond, was focused on the borehole because studying the velocity of the plate was deemed scientifically interesting. After the detonation, the plate appeared in only one frame, but this was enough to estimate its speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 10:08:59 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He showed the curves for a ~20kt device. Then began discussing a device 1000-ish times greater. Even with the square root as a multiplier, that's a big hot zone. Now, how shielding affects those kind of prompt radiation flux numbers, is another question. "I have looked upon the cockatrice, and survived." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Inverse square law laughs in your general direction. He showed the curves for a ~20kt device. Then began discussing a device 1000-ish times greater. Even with the square root as a multiplier, that's a big hot zone. Now, how shielding affects those kind of prompt radiation flux numbers, is another question. "I have looked upon the cockatrice, and survived." I set out to disprove him, but it seems he's kinda right, at least according to NASA. https://history.nasa.gov/conghand/nuclear.htm LD50 (400 rem) range for 20kt in space is ~14 miles. That's 50% of the exposed get sick and die 2-6 weeks later. 3000 rem (close to immediate incapacitation) range for 20kt in space is ~4 miles. 700 mile radius for LD50 dose. 1 megaton = 50x that, so 50x4 = 200 miles. Edited to add - it's pretty clear that the curve is not following the inverse square law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2023 7:54:04 PM EDT
[#38]
I never gave it a lot of thought, but it sounds reasonable.
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
