With the impending landfall of now category 5 Hurricane Irma, I was wondering if anyone has ever thought of disrupting a major storm at sea with a nuclear device? Setting off a hydrogen bomb to one side of the storm might cause a severe braking action o to the gathering maelstrom while keeping fallout to a minimum.
Has anyone ever heard of such a proposal or are the risks just too high? It would be nice to see the destructive potential of a nuke used for something beneficial.
What would happen if you exploded a nuclear bomb in the eye of a hurricane? Would the storm cell be immediately vaporized?
—Rupert Bainbridge (and hundreds of others)
This question gets submitted a lot.
It turns out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—the agency which runs the National Hurricane Center—gets it a lot, too. In fact, they’re asked about it so often that they’ve published a response.
I recommend you read the whole thing, but I think the last sentence of the first paragraph says it all:
“Needless to say, this is not a good idea.”
It makes me happy that an arm of the US government has, in some official capacity, issued an opinion on the subject of firing nuclear missiles into hurricanes.
Its still a nuke. Its still releasing nuclear material. Its is not a good idea.
Yeah, lets put a giant cloud of radioactive particles that are carried by the wind in front of a massive wind storm, so we can spread the suffering around even more!
amanita wrote: With the impending landfall of now category 5 Hurricane Irma, I was wondering if anyone has ever thought of disrupting a major storm at sea with a nuclear device? Setting off a hydrogen bomb to one side of the storm might cause a severe braking action o to the gathering maelstrom while keeping fallout to a minimum.
Has anyone ever heard of such a proposal or are the risks just too high? It would be nice to see the destructive potential of a nuke used for something beneficial.
Do you want Sharknado, because this is how we get Sharknado! *
*I want sharknado.
EDIT: Its actuallly a very interesting topic. Theories of using atomic weaponry to stop storms were explored in the 50s, back when there was less knowledge of the long term impacts. It was ruled unfeasible, as the energy quotion of a nuke is actually minimal compared to a major hurricane. Think about that for a minute... Actually google the topic. Its pretty interesting. They were thinking of nukes for all kinds of things, cars, ramjets, Texmex...
amanita wrote: With the impending landfall of now category 5 Hurricane Irma, I was wondering if anyone has ever thought of disrupting a major storm at sea with a nuclear device? Setting off a hydrogen bomb to one side of the storm might cause a severe braking action o to the gathering maelstrom while keeping fallout to a minimum.
Has anyone ever heard of such a proposal or are the risks just too high? It would be nice to see the destructive potential of a nuke used for something beneficial.
Do you want Sharknado, because this is how we get Sharknado! *
*I want sharknado.
EDIT: Its actuallly a very interesting topic. Theories of using atomic weaponry to stop storms were explored in the 50s, back when there was less knowledge of the long term impacts. It was ruled unfeasible, as the energy quotion of a nuke is actually minimal compared to a major hurricane. Think about that for a minute... Actually google the topic. Its pretty interesting. They were thinking of nukes for all kinds of things, cars, ramjets, Texmex...
One I remember was some Australian PM who wanted to nuke shipping lanes into the Great Barrier Reef.
A nuclear device would have no effect. Unless you could stop the spin of the earth or massively displace 100's of miles of water and air to the point it couldn't reform (an explosion can't do ether of these) In reality - it would just make the situation worse. You'd just be adding heat at a system that feeds off of heat. Plus irradiating a bunch of water that will probably fall on populations.
Xenomancers wrote: Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.
The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.
Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone? Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.
To be fair, radiation from a hydrogen weapon deployed out in the ocean has a small radioactive signature. The primary source of radiation in a such a weapon is the fissionable trigger, which has a much smaller output than a fission bomb. The largest source of radiation from a fusion bomb is from freed neutrons, but at sea very few ground particulates would be irradiated so they won't transfer that hazard to shores.
Xenomancers wrote: Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.
So no more plastic toy soldiers too?
Id sooner cancel out global warming with a nuclear winter.
Xenomancers wrote: Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.
The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.
Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone?
Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.
Which do you think would be more effective. Stop burning fossil fuels? Or nuke the Hurricane?
Xenomancers wrote: Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.
The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.
Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone?
Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.
Which do you think would be more effective. Stop burning fossil fuels? Or nuke the Hurricane?
Xenomancers wrote: Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.
Sounds like my guaranteed remedy for hiccups. Hold your breath for 20 minutes, you'll never have the hiccups again!
Xenomancers wrote: Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.
The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.
Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone? Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.
Which do you think would be more effective. Stop burning fossil fuels? Or nuke the Hurricane?
Nuke it with fossils! Think outside the box!
Why dont we just stop burning hurricanes.
Honestly
do you think todays society as it is would survive without fossil fuels?
How about we figure out a way to harness the massive amount of energy created by these storms? Farnsworth was able to capture and jar them, and he's an insane old man.
what would we do with the energy? Can we build capacitors large enough to hold hundreds of terawatts of energy? Hurricanes are not exactly a common occurrence, nor is where they'll occur set in stone.
Sure we could put something in there way to get a good boost of power for a bit, but it would only be for a little bit. The costs of it would probably outweigh the benefits, given how robust whatever we'd send out there would have to be.
Even if you could stop a hurricane with a nuclear bomb, you'd still be left with a massive tropical storm. And no guarantee that it wouldn't reform into a hurricane because you haven't eliminated what causes hurricanes in the first place. And at best you have a massive tropical storm which is carrying a lot of radioactive dust and water.
Xenomancers wrote: Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.
The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.
Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone?
Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.
Which do you think would be more effective. Stop burning fossil fuels? Or nuke the Hurricane?
Nuke it with fossils! Think outside the box!
Why dont we just stop burning hurricanes.
Honestly
do you think todays society as it is would survive without fossil fuels?
I think that's the topic of another thread that I would love to discuss, but short answer: with existing technology, of course not.
Would it be theoretically possible to build a contained continuous hurricane generator? Since a storm is essentially atmosphere+ temperature, could we potentially build a bio-dome that exists to create storm-generated energy?
Bear in mind I was seriously impressed with the human battery plant when I first watched the Matrix. Science is not my strong suit.
feeder wrote: Would it be theoretically possible to build a contained continuous hurricane generator? Since a storm is essentially atmosphere+ temperature, could we potentially build a bio-dome that exists to create storm-generated energy?
Bear in mind I was seriously impressed with the human battery plant when I first watched the Matrix. Science is not my strong suit.
Yeah... Going to say no. Again, talking sheer scale here. Hundreds of miles wide, TRILLIONS of gallons of water. Hurricanes are such a humbling force of nature. There is literally nothing else on earth that comes close to them. Even in our loudest attempts at shouting "HEY LOOK AT ME!" we don't come close to what one of these things do.
djones520 wrote: As Dakka's resident meteorologist, let me just make a statement that this would do nothing to the storm.
You're talking about hitting a storm the size of Georgia, with a nuclear weapon, and expecting it to do something.
Your AVERAGE hurricane produces 600 terawatts of energy. In contrast, the Hiroshima bomb generated about 3 megawatts of energy.
A nuclear weapon wouldn't even register as a blip to a hurricane, let alone disrupt it.
An average hurricane generates 600,000,000,000,000 joules of energy per second.
A 1 megaton hydrogen blast generates 42,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy.
You don't think that could cause a blip to a hurricane?
I'm not saying a nuke is more powerful - obviously not, compared to the sustained duration of a storm. I just think a megaton bomb, or a series of bombs could dramatically effect a hurricane. It's not like you have to match something's energy to destabilize it.
Of course the downside is that if things go wrong you might actually add too much heat to the storm and increase its strength.
feeder wrote: Would it be theoretically possible to build a contained continuous hurricane generator? Since a storm is essentially atmosphere+ temperature, could we potentially build a bio-dome that exists to create storm-generated energy?
Bear in mind I was seriously impressed with the human battery plant when I first watched the Matrix. Science is not my strong suit.
Yeah... Going to say no. Again, talking sheer scale here. Hundreds of miles wide, TRILLIONS of gallons of water. Hurricanes are such a humbling force of nature. There is literally nothing else on earth that comes close to them. Even in our loudest attempts at shouting "HEY LOOK AT ME!" we don't come close to what one of these things do.
This is why you can't use a nuke to stop a hurricane. The OP actually has to understand what weather is in the first place, and the scale of it. A hurricane is not just a little wind contained in a single place that you can puff on and it goes away. It shaped, driven, and powered by patterns and energy that extends to a global scale. Kind of like how if you parked a bulldozer on a mountain slope, it's not going to stop the avalanche coming down the mountain. Sure, you might catch an impressive load of snow in the scoop, but uh, well, there's still the entire rest of the avalanche doing its thing.
feeder wrote: Would it be theoretically possible to build a contained continuous hurricane generator? Since a storm is essentially atmosphere+ temperature, could we potentially build a bio-dome that exists to create storm-generated energy?
Bear in mind I was seriously impressed with the human battery plant when I first watched the Matrix. Science is not my strong suit.
Yeah... Going to say no. Again, talking sheer scale here. Hundreds of miles wide, TRILLIONS of gallons of water. Hurricanes are such a humbling force of nature. There is literally nothing else on earth that comes close to them. Even in our loudest attempts at shouting "HEY LOOK AT ME!" we don't come close to what one of these things do.
This is why you can't use a nuke to stop a hurricane. The OP actually has to understand what weather is in the first place, and the scale of it. A hurricane is not just a little wind contained in a single place that you can puff on and it goes away. It shaped, driven, and powered by patterns and energy that extends to a global scale. Kind of like how if you parked a bulldozer on a mountain slope, it's not going to stop the avalanche coming down the mountain. Sure, you might catch an impressive load of snow in the scoop, but uh, well, there's still the entire rest of the avalanche doing its thing.
amanita wrote: With the impending landfall of now category 5 Hurricane Irma, I was wondering if anyone has ever thought of disrupting a major storm at sea with a nuclear device? Setting off a hydrogen bomb to one side of the storm might cause a severe braking action o to the gathering maelstrom while keeping fallout to a minimum.
Has anyone ever heard of such a proposal or are the risks just too high? It would be nice to see the destructive potential of a nuke used for something beneficial.
There was some theoretical research done back in the Cold War on that subject. It was determined that A: The big hydrogen bombs only have a fraction of the power of even a "middle of the road" hurricane (in terms of intensity) and B: the blast effects of a major thermonuclear weapon would have no impact toward dissipating a hurricane. It wasn't worth the risk of potential fallout (which due to the mechanics of a hurricane, would be present even it the weapon was airbursted in the eye).
The old fashioned methods of dealing with a hurricane, such as evacuation, observation, and battening down the hatches, are still the best methods.
djones520 wrote: As Dakka's resident meteorologist, let me just make a statement that this would do nothing to the storm.
You're talking about hitting a storm the size of Georgia, with a nuclear weapon, and expecting it to do something.
Your AVERAGE hurricane produces 600 terawatts of energy. In contrast, the Hiroshima bomb generated about 3 megawatts of energy.
A nuclear weapon wouldn't even register as a blip to a hurricane, let alone disrupt it.
An average hurricane generates 600,000,000,000,000 joules of energy per second.
A 1 megaton hydrogen blast generates 42,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy.
You don't think that could cause a blip to a hurricane?
I'm not saying a nuke is more powerful - obviously not, compared to the sustained duration of a storm. I just think a megaton bomb, or a series of bombs could dramatically effect a hurricane. It's not like you have to match something's energy to destabilize it.
Of course the downside is that if things go wrong you might actually add too much heat to the storm and increase its strength.
Here is an analogy. Imagine a vortex in a river rapid. The nuclear explosion will be represented by throwing a rock the size of a basketball into it. It will make a big splash but the vortex will still continue to turn and within moments it will be as is nothing had happened.
djones520 wrote: As Dakka's resident meteorologist, let me just make a statement that this would do nothing to the storm.
You're talking about hitting a storm the size of Georgia, with a nuclear weapon, and expecting it to do something.
Your AVERAGE hurricane produces 600 terawatts of energy. In contrast, the Hiroshima bomb generated about 3 megawatts of energy.
A nuclear weapon wouldn't even register as a blip to a hurricane, let alone disrupt it.
An average hurricane generates 600,000,000,000,000 joules of energy per second.
A 1 megaton hydrogen blast generates 42,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy.
You don't think that could cause a blip to a hurricane?
I'm not saying a nuke is more powerful - obviously not, compared to the sustained duration of a storm. I just think a megaton bomb, or a series of bombs could dramatically effect a hurricane. It's not like you have to match something's energy to destabilize it.
Of course the downside is that if things go wrong you might actually add too much heat to the storm and increase its strength.
Here is an analogy. Imagine a vortex in a river rapid. The nuclear explosion will be represented by throwing a rock the size of a basketball into it. It will make a big splash but the vortex will still continue to turn and within moments it will be as is nothing had happened.
Exactly.
Throwing the rock in(blowing up a nuke) may temporarily disrupt the circular flow of water(hurricane), but it won't change the conditions that cause the vortex to form in the first place(tropical depression over warm waters resulting in a storm cell forming).
There is only one way to stop a hurricane. We get every Bears fan, ship them down to Florida for an all you can eat cabbage and bratwurst buffet. We then aim all of their flatulence towards the hurricane.
Nothing can withstand it. NOTHING!
Also, the fallout from the flatulence would probably destroy Florida and the Bears fans. Win/Win imo.
I'd imagine a nuke probably does have enough energy in raw terms to disrupt a hurricane but only if it's properly directed and over a massively large area. If you just let off nukes it'll send big arse shock waves through the hurricane that, from what I understand, will do sweet feth all (ie. very little) to disrupt the net movement of air.
Indeed if you add a crapload of heat energy to the hurricane you'll probably just make it worse.
feeder wrote: Would it be theoretically possible to build a contained continuous hurricane generator? Since a storm is essentially atmosphere+ temperature, could we potentially build a bio-dome that exists to create storm-generated energy?
Bear in mind I was seriously impressed with the human battery plant when I first watched the Matrix. Science is not my strong suit.
Yeah... Going to say no. Again, talking sheer scale here. Hundreds of miles wide, TRILLIONS of gallons of water. Hurricanes are such a humbling force of nature. There is literally nothing else on earth that comes close to them.
Volcanic eruptions can probably one-up a hurricane. The eruption of Tambora in 1815 is estimated to have been the equivalent of a 33 gigaton warhead (4,2x10^20 megajoules, compared to the 6x10^8 megajoules per second in a hurricane figure given above), causing the "year without a summer" in 1816. This is, obviously, 12 orders of magnitude more energy than a hurricane supposedly releases during a second. A hurricane isn't going to stay active long enough to catch up to 12 orders of magnitude more energy.
That's not even taking the big ones into account, Tambora is merely the biggest modern volcanic eruption. The truly big ones are too far in the past. Let's not even start mentioning meteors though, that'll just get silly.
Actually, there was a theory on a way to reduce hurricane formation - they talked about it on NPR once but I haven't found it since! Had to do with placing thousands of large tubes floating in the Atlantic... I want to say Bermuda triangle type area? Anyway it sounds like I'm making this up but I swear it was on NPR
What problems can't be solved by dropping a nuclear bomb on them? I've seen stuff on TV where they seal volcanoes with nuclear bombs, deflect asteroids with them, maybe you could counteract earthquake or tsunami with them too! Just don't be living anywhere near where the fallout gets spread around.
And I recall they also tried with dry-ice. In general the problem is that hurricanes are VAST things and have a lot of momentum built up into them long before they become supersize and heading for land. So its a huge amount of energy to try suddenly stopping.
Xenomancers wrote: Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.
The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.
Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone?
Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.
Which do you think would be more effective. Stop burning fossil fuels? Or nuke the Hurricane?
Nuke it with fossils! Think outside the box!
Why dont we just stop burning hurricanes.
Honestly
do you think todays society as it is would survive without fossil fuels?
Absolutely. and other countries are giving up the fossil fuel addictions. Iceland has powered their whole country with geothermal. electric powered transportation is getting better and cheaper. The world would also be a better place for it with cleaner air and water.
Unlike continuing down the fossil fuel path, as the earth warms up, more and more crop lands are destroyed, by flooding and droughts. can society survive the coming floods and losing costal cities to the sea? Not to mention the earthquakes and flammable water due to fraking. Nope.
Electric cars are still a debatable point when you consider components such as the batteries. That said they remove direct air pollution so I can see them being pushed for more and more; if nothing else they'll clean up urban air pollution a fair bit (so long as industry is regulated to control its emissions).
Here's an idea! Nuke a volcano to cool the earth so the hurricanes get smaller. We still get to burn fossil fuels, because the CO2 will be counteracted by the volcanic winters!
amanita wrote: With the impending landfall of now category 5 Hurricane Irma, I was wondering if anyone has ever thought of disrupting a major storm at sea with a nuclear device? Setting off a hydrogen bomb to one side of the storm might cause a severe braking action o to the gathering maelstrom while keeping fallout to a minimum.
Has anyone ever heard of such a proposal or are the risks just too high? It would be nice to see the destructive potential of a nuke used for something beneficial.
While it's a bad idea, fair play to you for going outside the box and really running with it.
Howard A Treesong wrote: What problems can't be solved by dropping a nuclear bomb on them? I've seen stuff on TV where they seal volcanoes with nuclear bombs, deflect asteroids with them, maybe you could counteract earthquake or tsunami with them too! Just don't be living anywhere near where the fallout gets spread around.
Well the asteroid thing would actually work. And radiation wouldn't matter because Earth has it's own radiation shield which deals with far more radiation every day than all nuclear bombs that ever existed.
Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.
Howard A Treesong wrote: What problems can't be solved by dropping a nuclear bomb on them? I've seen stuff on TV where they seal volcanoes with nuclear bombs, deflect asteroids with them, maybe you could counteract earthquake or tsunami with them too! Just don't be living anywhere near where the fallout gets spread around.
Well the asteroid thing would actually work. And radiation wouldn't matter because Earth has it's own radiation shield which deals with far more radiation every day than all nuclear bombs that ever existed.
Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.
Also, the whole "space is big" thing. The square-cube law is really helpful here.
[IRMA] Saint Martin dans le mur de l'oeil subit les effets de l'ouragan IRMA #iram #ouragan #SaintMartin (Source : Rinsy Xieng) pic.twitter.com/e2j7e9KtOu
Xenomancers wrote: Want to stop hurricanes from becoming ever stronger? Stop burning fossil fuels. We'd still have hurricanes though - but they'd be weaker.
The Galveston storm was a Cat 4.
Also, you are more than welcome to quit burning fossil fuels, yet I see you words on the screen which means you are an absolute screaming hypocrite surrender monkey. Where do you think the energy came from to power it? Where do you think the materials came from to make your terminal/phone?
Unless you are living like the unabomber you're part of the carbon footprint problem.
Which do you think would be more effective. Stop burning fossil fuels? Or nuke the Hurricane?
Nuke it with fossils! Think outside the box!
Why dont we just stop burning hurricanes.
Honestly
do you think todays society as it is would survive without fossil fuels?
feeder wrote: Would it be theoretically possible to build a contained continuous hurricane generator? Since a storm is essentially atmosphere+ temperature, could we potentially build a bio-dome that exists to create storm-generated energy?
Bear in mind I was seriously impressed with the human battery plant when I first watched the Matrix. Science is not my strong suit.
The Laws of Thermodynamics would be an issue. You're pumping a lot of energy into the water to heat it up, then not all of that energy is able to be transferred into the hurricane and then you cannot extract all of the energy from the hurricane winds, either. So at each step you are losing more and more energy.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.
Nope, that's backwards. Breaking up an asteroid into smaller pieces that still hit does almost nothing, you're still getting the same total impact energy. The goal with nuking an asteroid is to deflect it so that it misses entirely. If you are able to catch it far enough out it only takes a very tiny nudge to turn a direct hit into a clean miss.
Not the smartest thing ever, IMO, but not suicidal. They're in the clear part between the worst of the hurricane (waiting until that clear moment to take off), and with modern weather information it's possible to stay there and get clear of the storm until/unless they can climb high enough to get above it all. But, as noted, it may not be a fun ride for the passengers (though, less bad than you might think, wind speed alone doesn't cause turbulence). The bigger factor is that it means cutting the margin for error. Say they have a major mechanical problem and have to land, but now their brief window has closed and the departure airport is under the hurricane. Out in the middle of the ocean it's going to be harder to find an alternate airport. Someone at the airline clearly decided that the risks weren't severe enough to justify canceling the flight and losing money, but I'm not sure that I'd want to be on that flight myself.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.
Nope, that's backwards. Breaking up an asteroid into smaller pieces that still hit does almost nothing, you're still getting the same total impact energy. The goal with nuking an asteroid is to deflect it so that it misses entirely. If you are able to catch it far enough out it only takes a very tiny nudge to turn a direct hit into a clean miss.
To an extent. Shattering something into smaller parts will make those parts disintegrate more rapidly in the atmosphere, causing a hell of a meteor shower light show rather than actually slamming into the ground with the strength of several nuclear bombs. There's still the same amount of energy being dumped, but it's much more distributed and at a higher altitude.
Full points for thinking of something like this. It just would never even have occurred to me. The details of the idea don't work out, but full credit for the lateral thinking.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.
Nope, that's backwards. Breaking up an asteroid into smaller pieces that still hit does almost nothing, you're still getting the same total impact energy.
But that energy is spread over a larger area and the surface area that comes in contact with the atmosphere is greater meaning the atmosphere can burn off even more energy. If you concentrate energy on a single location vs many impact sites it'll tend to do more damage and have more penetrating power.
Obviously not getting hit at all is ideal, but it's definitely better to get hit with many small pieces that have the same total kinetic energy than one big bastard hogging all the kinetic energy to itself.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.
Nope, that's backwards. Breaking up an asteroid into smaller pieces that still hit does almost nothing, you're still getting the same total impact energy.
But that energy is spread over a larger area and the surface area that comes in contact with the atmosphere is greater meaning the atmosphere can burn off even more energy. If you concentrate energy on a single location vs many impact sites it'll tend to do more damage and have more penetrating power.
Obviously not getting hit at all is ideal, but it's definitely better to get hit with many small pieces that have the same total kinetic energy than one big bastard hogging all the kinetic energy to itself.
But then the issue is trying to actually shatter an asteroid into small enough pieces for that to happen is very difficult to impossible depending on what the asteroid is made of.
A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course you don't deflect asteroids, you break them up into smaller pieces which will cause less damage.
Nope, that's backwards. Breaking up an asteroid into smaller pieces that still hit does almost nothing, you're still getting the same total impact energy.
But that energy is spread over a larger area and the surface area that comes in contact with the atmosphere is greater meaning the atmosphere can burn off even more energy. If you concentrate energy on a single location vs many impact sites it'll tend to do more damage and have more penetrating power.
Obviously not getting hit at all is ideal, but it's definitely better to get hit with many small pieces that have the same total kinetic energy than one big bastard hogging all the kinetic energy to itself.
But then the issue is trying to actually shatter an asteroid into small enough pieces for that to happen is very difficult to impossible depending on what the asteroid is made of.
A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.
Even if you don't break it in to small enough pieces to completely burn up in the atmosphere breaking it up into a handful of smaller pieces may be enough to prevent completely wiping out humanity. Depending on the size of the original of course, at some point you reach a size which has enough energy to wipe stuff out even if you break it up.
But if you say a 30 billion ton asteroid is enough to wipe out humanity (I don't know if it is or not) that doesn't mean that three 10 billion ton asteroids are also enough to wipe out humanity even though they have the same energy. The same way that just because a 75mm anti tank round can destroy a tank doesn't mean the same energy worth of 40mm rounds will also destroy a tank.
It's not just about raw energy, it's where that energy is directed and how well it's directed. I guess at some point an asteroid would reach a sufficient size that breaking it in to smaller pieces would make things even worse (think cluster bomb vs bunker buster).
Same with hurricane vs nuclear bomb, it's not just a matter of raw energy.
Exactly. Breaking an asteroid up would lessen the overall damage it causes to earth. Depending on it's size, you might use several bombs too. Even if just to have a failsafe.
2-3 nukes placed at strategic points on an asteroid could easily handle something even several kilometers across. Especially if any of them were drilled below the surface.
Any asteroid large enough to where breaking it apart is going to make the damage worse is large enough to wipe us out many times over, and might be too large to deflect. So we're extra screwed in that case.
A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.
I figure it would be less Solid iron lump and more Hematite. still dense, still probably very strong.
ether way id throw nukes at it and deal with bird shot over a deer slug.
rather deal with a several city blocks blowing up vs half a state.
More like wide spread, but overall minor devastation vs end of the world. An asteroid a couple kilometers in diameter is appocalyptic levels of destruction. World wide crop failure from blocked sunlight for decades. Whatever country(s) are unlucky to suffer direct impact are basically destroyed. If it hits the ocean we have the largest tsunami ever recorded which wipes out most of the world's coastlines.
The main advantage of blowing up an asteroid is that while the impact area is still boned, you change an extension event into a survivable event. Yes, the impact area is still boned but at least the rest of the planet will survive.
curran12 wrote: Probably not a very pleasant ride for the passengers. But modern airliners are super durable and flexible. Here's a photo of a 787 wing stress test:
A Town Called Malus wrote: But then the issue is trying to actually shatter an asteroid into small enough pieces for that to happen is very difficult to impossible depending on what the asteroid is made of.
A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.
And some asteroids have been identified as not being solid at all, but more porous like a sponge. A nuclear impact would likely be absorbed without causing a change in direction or a break up.
Tell me about it.
I was going to ride this thing out, but the latest track has the eye wall literally going over my house.
May have to go to a shelter for this one.
How close is it? Is there still time to jump in the car and drive to Tennessee for a couple days or something? Or are the roads just gridlock with people already trying that?
Necros wrote: How close is it? Is there still time to jump in the car and drive to Tennessee for a couple days or something? Or are the roads just gridlock with people already trying that?
My cousin's fam left southern miami a few days ago... and it was nearly gridlock all they way north till the border.
So, it seems that many saw that monster and decided for a vacay early. Not sure what's it like now.
Most theme parks are starting to shut down already...
Necros wrote: How close is it? Is there still time to jump in the car and drive to Tennessee for a couple days or something? Or are the roads just gridlock with people already trying that?
My cousin's fam left southern miami a few days ago... and it was nearly gridlock all they way north till the border.
So, it seems that many saw that monster and decided for a vacay early. Not sure what's it like now.
Most theme parks are starting to shut down already...
That's pretty much all I would do if it were me. Trouble is it would take me like 4 days to pack everything up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Traffic looks OK though. I'd get out while I can if you still can.
Last big hurricane we had up here was Sandy. It was real bad, can't imagine one bigger. Here in Philly we lost power for a week, which is nothing compared to some friends and family who were along the jersey shore.
Looking at google maps traffic, it looks like the 75 and 95 have slow traffic for several hundred miles going north from southern florida all the way up through to Atlanta and South Carolina...though not totally jammed...yet.
Vaktathi wrote: Looking at google maps traffic, it looks like the 75 and 95 have slow traffic for several hundred miles going north from southern florida all the way up through to Atlanta and South Carolina...though not totally jammed...yet.
A lump of rock 2 kilometres in diameter is pretty sturdy. A lump of iron 2 kilometres in diameter even more so.
I figure it would be less Solid iron lump and more Hematite. still dense, still probably very strong.
ether way id throw nukes at it and deal with bird shot over a deer slug.
rather deal with a several city blocks blowing up vs half a state.
I think a bit of reality needs to be shown here and too many Armageddon films have been watched. A 2km diameter asteroid is something like 12bn tonnes (UK so 10^9) of rock. A nuke would scratch it not shatter it. You can see this from images of post nuclear explosions. The area round it is flattened but there is relatively little damage to any the rock formation (at the mineral level there will be some shocking near the blast site). The idea that you can lob a few nukes at an asteroid this big and turn it into a pile of small rubble pieces isn't based on reality. The only reason to send nukes after an asteroid is that if you hit it early enough you might give it enough of a nudge that it changes its orbit ever so slightly so that by the time it reaches the earth it misses by a few thousand kms.
A guy I recently started playing Player Unknown's Battleground with is going to ride it out. I suggested he should either get out or seek better shelter. I was laughed at and told to stay in the North.
Dreadwinter wrote: A guy I recently started playing Player Unknown's Battleground with is going to ride it out. I suggested he should either get out or seek better shelter. I was laughed at and told to stay in the North.
lol Florida people
Yeah, we need mandatory evacuation warnings to make most of us leave. As of the 2pm forecast, looks like i'm right in the path, but up near Orlando. Irma may not even be major hurricane strength by the time it hits me.
I feel really sorry for the South Florida and Miami folk. I was in Broward during Andrew and Wilma. The cleanup is not fun. Even the hardiest Floridians admit this one is going to be really ugly.
Dreadwinter wrote: A guy I recently started playing Player Unknown's Battleground with is going to ride it out. I suggested he should either get out or seek better shelter. I was laughed at and told to stay in the North.
lol Florida people
Asides from the potential looting and general property destruction what would the point of waiting it out be though.
im fairly sure in a bad situation the power gets shut off so its not like you can sit their and play games all day besides one of them hand held game boys.
that and painting miniatures but who has time for that
Desubot wrote:Asides from the potential looting and general property destruction what would the point of waiting it out be though.
* Not being able to make it
* Having relatives who can't get away and trying to be there for them (especially if they have some sort of handicap)
* Not having the financial means to just go
If you are poor in such a situation and there's not government help then getting out might just not be an option and "waiting it out" might just be a brave facade you put on and hope for the best (because there's nothing else you can do).
I'm in the second category.
I have elderly handicapped relatives who can't evacuate.
My plan was to go to a shelter, but they are all full.
Thankfully, I was able for to acquire some plywood and have been busy boarding windows.
I live in a block home, so hopefully that will be enough.
konst80hummel wrote: Apparently there is also a category 3 coming up called Jose. 950klm from little Antilles
I have heard that this second hurricane (Jose) is helping dissipate some of Irma's strength. Anyone have more info/thoughts on that?
Won't it just make it a double hurricane?
I don't know about hurricanes specifically, but in general 2 vortices rotating the same direction some distance apart will tend to dissipate each other in to a larger but much lower intensity structure. If they're brought close together rapidly so their cores can begin to coincide they'll tend to strengthen each other.
Desubot wrote:Asides from the potential looting and general property destruction what would the point of waiting it out be though.
* Not being able to make it
* Having relatives who can't get away and trying to be there for them (especially if they have some sort of handicap)
* Not having the financial means to just go
If you are poor in such a situation and there's not government help then getting out might just not be an option and "waiting it out" might just be a brave facade you put on and hope for the best (because there's nothing else you can do).
Desubot wrote:Asides from the potential looting and general property destruction what would the point of waiting it out be though.
* Not being able to make it
* Having relatives who can't get away and trying to be there for them (especially if they have some sort of handicap)
* Not having the financial means to just go
If you are poor in such a situation and there's not government help then getting out might just not be an option and "waiting it out" might just be a brave facade you put on and hope for the best (because there's nothing else you can do).
Desubot wrote:Asides from the potential looting and general property destruction what would the point of waiting it out be though.
* Not being able to make it
* Having relatives who can't get away and trying to be there for them (especially if they have some sort of handicap)
* Not having the financial means to just go
If you are poor in such a situation and there's not government help then getting out might just not be an option and "waiting it out" might just be a brave facade you put on and hope for the best (because there's nothing else you can do).
You'll also have people who believe they can ride it out. These days no one tends to underestimate disasters, it's always overestimated. Either because no one in charge of issuing warnings wants to be the fool who said it'd be fine and it turns out to be terrible or in the case of the media they have a vested interested in making everything sound as bad as possible.
Not saying that's the case here, I haven't followed it closely enough to make an educated guess, but I'm sure a lot of people don't have faith when they are told they should be scared.
Desubot wrote:Asides from the potential looting and general property destruction what would the point of waiting it out be though.
* Not being able to make it
* Having relatives who can't get away and trying to be there for them (especially if they have some sort of handicap)
* Not having the financial means to just go
If you are poor in such a situation and there's not government help then getting out might just not be an option and "waiting it out" might just be a brave facade you put on and hope for the best (because there's nothing else you can do).
You'll also have people who believe they can ride it out. These days no one tends to underestimate disasters, it's always overestimated. Either because no one in charge of issuing warnings wants to be the fool who said it'd be fine and it turns out to be terrible or in the case of the media they have a vested interested in making everything sound as bad as possible.
Not saying that's the case here, I haven't followed it closely enough to make an educated guess, but I'm sure a lot of people don't have faith when they are told they should be scared.
The last I read about government support is that they are right now understaffed and underfunded due to "policy changes" so there's not even enough people to warn the affected population in the USA.
I saw a video on Facebook where the ocean/sea in the bahamas was just gone after the hurricane passed. Folks were just walking around where there used to be water and there were chained up bouys just laying on the ground. Would have been a great time to go drive around looking for pirate treasure.
That happened in Tampa Bay and some other locations as well. The pressure at the eye of the storm is so low, it's sucking the water out of the surrounding locations, and dragging it into the center.
