this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024

179 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35694 readers

1100 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

179

Would Nuclear Weapons be as destructive in ship to ship space combat, as they are on the ground in an atmosphere? (lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

74 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As far as I know, the big damage from Nuclear Weapons planetside is the massive blastwave that can pretty much scour the earth, with radiation and thermal damage bringing up the rear.

But in space there is no atmosphere to create a huge concussive and scouring blast wave, which means a nuclear weapon would have to rely on its all-directional thermal and radiation to do damage.. but is that enough to actually be usful as a weapon in space, considering ships in space would be designed to handle radiation and extreme thermals due to the lack of any insulative atmosphere?

I know a lot of this might be supposition based on imaginary future tech and assumptions made about materials science and starship creation, but surely at least some rough guess could be made with regards to a thernonuclear detonation without the focusing effects of an atmosphere?

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 199 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (11 children)

From a NASA paper on this very subject:

If a nuclear weapon is exploded in a vacuum-i. e., in space-the complexion of weapon effects changes drastically:

First, in the absence of an atmosphere, blast disappears completely.

Second, thermal radiation, as usually defined, also disappears. There is no longer any air for the blast wave to heat and much higher frequency radiation is emitted from the weapon itself.

Third, in the absence of the atmosphere, nuclear radiation will suffer no physical attenuation and the only degradation in intensity will arise from reduction with distance. As a result the range of significant dosages will be many times greater than is the case at sea level.

Sounds like you'd end up with just a big blast of radiation

[–] [email protected] 95 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I spent 20 minutes searching for an answer to this, and all my searches turned up nothing but video games and short stories.

Appreciate you posting that, and honestly a little frustrated on why that didnt come up for me.

[–] [email protected] 72 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Web search has gotten so bad, I hate it

[–] [email protected] 44 points 9 months ago

SEO is a plague on us all.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I've completely switched over to using ChatGPT as my basic question search engine now. Like I get that it's confidently wrong at times and I wouldn't go there for legal advice but for silly curiosities I've got a better chance at finding an answer to satisfy my query.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I beta tested Bard and have used ChatGPT and the number of times they responded with completely wrong answers was stunning. Confidently wrong is a greatvway to put it.

I switched to DuckDuckGo a few years back and it's been better than Google for a bit. At this rate, I expect Encyclopedia Britannica to make a strong comeback.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What if you can't afford the whole encyclopedia set and can only buy the sample volume?

And speaking of volcanoes, man are they a violent igneous rock formation!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Jokes aside, the future of paywalled curated knowledge is already here. With the current assault on public libraries, I expect that fairly soon, knowledge will once again be a privileged of wealth.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Ziggurat 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

For the fun fact, shockwave do propagate in the interstellarmedium. Most likely a conventionnal nuke isn't big enough, but we can see the shockwave from supernova explosion, and voyager did measure the moment it left the sun one.

Radiation may be another beast with a well designed bomb, it's pretty hard to stop neutrons, and they do a lot of biological damage. However, radiation poisoning isn't an instant dead. Like shoot a nuke, leave. Come back 2 weeks latter and everyone is dying. Radiation could definitely damage electronic but I would assume spaceship designer worked properly, and the humam will be poisonned before the electronic starts to fail. A note though. The 1/r^2 law would still apply and space is huge. Being 1km out of the explosion divides the dose by 100 compared to being 100m away. 10 km away would divide the dose by 10 000. So the death radius won't be that big.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Okay, but now we're comparing nukes and supernovae, and that's kind of like comparing the erosion of a drop of water to that caused by a tsunami. Sure, the same forces may be at work, but they're small enough to be negligible in one.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] EmoDuck 4 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Follow up question. If I build a giant vacuum chamber on earth and ignited a nuke in the middle of it, what would happen to the blast?

Would the chamber just explode with the full power of the nuke or would it remain unharmed (save for debris of the nuke itself)?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

All the radiation that normally heats up the surrounding air into a giant fireball would heat up the walls of your vacuum chamber into a giant fireball.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

What about the EMP component of it?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The massive EMPs that blasted the Pacific back in the day were generated with upper-atmospheric testing. The way it interacted with the upper atmosphere was special. If you set off the charge higher in space with no atmosphere, the EMP effect is lessened.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

scratch all this if the missile explodes right in the middle of your bridge

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 44 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Others have answered you question about non-directed nuclear blasts in space already. They don't work the same way as in atmosphere; lack the blast or the thermal heat, etc. Enter the Casaba-Howitzer, a theoretical nuclear shaped charge that shoots a directed plasma stream at near light speed. This idea came about in the 60s along with nuclear blast propulsion.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The name comes from the casaba melon, a variety of honeydew, because the lab was "on a melon kick that year," naming various projects after melons and having already used up all the good ones.

I can appreciate that sort of naming convention.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Its a good way to prevent bikeshedding. Which yes is a real thing.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yamato cannon operational

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Thats fucking incredible. That deserves to be in more sci-fi.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I completely agree. It was used in To Sleep in a Sea of Stars by Christopher Paolini. I can't think of many other works that use it.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

https://youtu.be/qEfPBt9dU60

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

ah, you beat me to it

To everyone else ☝️ Kurzgesagt made a good video about nuking the moon which fits pretty well with ops question. The moon has no atmosphere to speak of and the video explores the effect on terrain

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Thank you. I enjoyed it so much, that I purchased their Universe in a Nutshell app!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

Question is already answered, but. The BSG miniseries has a good nuke scene which is actually pretty reasonable: https://youtu.be/R-L4tVksGYc

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

Atomic Rockets has a whole page for this

https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That is largely true, but there are still 2 things : first, the plasma is still a super hot ball of matter with very high kinetic energy. Second, the radiations are still deadly at short range, unless you have specific protections, and radiation protections are heavy and bulky. At worse, the plasma can violently accelerate the target ship and damage it with this sudden acceleration.

But you can also easily turn your atomic bomb into a more refined atomic shell. The you can have projectiles propelled by the explosion (so it's now an atomic frag bomb), or a penetring shell with a delayed explosion so the explosion occur inside the target ship.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I always thought the initial explosion was so hot it vapourised everything in a certain radius. Would an atomic frag work?

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

If you made direct impact wouldn't the fuselage of the ship and the atmosphere inside it still allow for the traditional blast to propagate?

[–] ThrowawayPermanente 3 points 9 months ago

I think so. I don't think the bomb directly generates a shockwave, but rather the shockwave is generated by air being superheated which causes a pressure spike. All of the energy that would superheat air would still be present even if the bomb was activated in space, it would just be acting on the first thing it touches ie. the hull of the ship. Does vaporized metal still increase in pressure as temperature increases? I'm guessing it does, which should produce a shockwave. But idk, I'm not a doctor

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Chances are there isnt enough air to make a significant difference and any ship large enough to have enough air would have air lock systems as a safety net.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Right, but the ship itself would allow the shockwave, metal is still matter for vibrations to follow.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The shock wave needs a medium (air) to travel through. So if the bomb was touching a ship, it would certainly transfer kinetic energy, but if there was any space (not air) between them, there is still no shockwave for the ship to feel.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A railgun would be far more effective for transfering kinetic energy and it's munitions would likely be cheaper

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

How about a railgun with a nuclear payload? Breach the hull and the nuke would work again

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A shockwave can travel along the solid structure itself as the medium. Any ship that is actually directly hit would be vaporized. It's just the whole point of nuke is not needing a direct hit. I doubt any realistic space vessel with anything even remotely similar to plausible near future technology could survive a direct hit from even a moderately sized conventional explosive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it takes incredible amounts of energy just to move unarmored ships slowly around our own solar system.

Seems like adding armor would make them so heavy and slow that they wouldn't be worth using.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The electromagnetic pulse may not cause physical destruction, but it would likely disable any spacecraft in the blast. Which could result in death and destruction when the passengers can't breathe or get warmth and the craft loses control.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Wouldn't a spacecraft have a Faraday cage anyway, to protect the electronics from stellar winds?

That might reduce the impact of a given EMP.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If I've learned anything from watching nuclear blasts in space on sci-fi shows, it's that hasshak, dal shakka mel!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Shal'kek nem'ron

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

This Video will tell you everything you could possibly want to know on the subject, answering your question exactly and in extensive detail. The long and short of it is, not really, no, but they could be made to be very exceptionally effective anyway.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You probably need to wrap the nuke in multiple layers of material. Some inner layer to absord as much energy as possible and transfers it as kinetic energy to an outer high-density layer to create extremly fast shrapnel.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

So a nuclear pipebomb

load more comments