Nuclear Explosion [weapon] in Space - result?

[Bullgrit]

In the computer game Modern Warfare 2, a nuclear warhead is detonated high above Earth. The result on Earth is an EMP wave. The result in space is the destruction of the ISS.

This got me thinking. If a nuclear weapon were detonated in space, (way out in space -- not in the upper atmosphere), what would be the result? If the ISS, (or any spacecraft), were nearby, would it be destroyed physically?

What makes me wonder is that in the "vacuum" of space, is there any way for a force wave to travel away from the detonation? Is all damage just radiation? Or is there any blast effect?

Bullgrit

 

[RangerWickett]

Google is your friend. Courtesy of NASA:

NUCLEAR WEAPON EFFECTS IN SPACE

And courtesy of Wikipedia, the source of all truth:

High-altitude nuclear explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In short, no, a nuke almost certainly would not annihilate the space station as shown in MW2, though if it were within a few hundred miles it would probably kill everyone on board through radiation. Not sure about the extent of the EMP.

 

[Pbartender]

Google is your friend. Courtesy of NASA:

NUCLEAR WEAPON EFFECTS IN SPACE

And courtesy of Wikipedia, the source of all truth:

High-altitude nuclear explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In short, no, a nuke almost certainly would not annihilate the space station as shown in MW2, though if it were within a few hundred miles it would probably kill everyone on board through radiation. Not sure about the extent of the EMP.

Yup, yup...

In a nutshell:

In space, the damage from heat and overpressure (the traditional explosive "blast") is practically eliminated for anything but a point-blank nuclear explosion, because there is virtually no atmosphere to propagate it.

The radiation effects, however, have their range greatly multiplied since, likewise, there is virtually no atmosphere to shield you from it.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

So what are the implications of that for the standard SciFi trope of using nuclear missiles for changing the course of an asteriod on a collision course with Earth? It would have to be a detonation upon impact, but then wouldn't most of the force of the detonation go into blowing apart pieces at the point of impact rather than making any significant changes to the course of the asteroid?

 

[Pbartender]

So what are the implications of that for the standard SciFi trope of using nuclear missiles for changing the course of an asteriod on a collision course with Earth? It would have to be a detonation upon impact...

Yep.

...but then wouldn't most of the force of the detonation go into blowing apart pieces at the point of impact rather than making any significant changes to the course of the asteroid?

Yes, it would, but that's precisely what would make the course change...

Parts of the asteroid get blasted off at high speeds in one direction, and the greater part of the asteroid moves very slightly in the other direction. Do it enough times, or with a large enough explosion, and asteroid's orbit may change enough to make a difference.

 

[Mark]

What's the latest trustworthy intel on asteroid collisions and Earth?

 

[TanisFrey]

Parts of the asteroid get blasted off at high speeds in one direction, and the greater part of the asteroid moves very slightly in the other direction. Do it enough times, or with a large enough explosion, and asteroid's orbit may change enough to make a difference.

My understanding is that the radiation from a close blast will cause the rock of the asteroid to boil off, thus causing the shift.

 

[Umbran]

My understanding is that the radiation from a close blast will cause the rock of the asteroid to boil off, thus causing the shift.

You don't get much thrust unless the boil-off is focused, like a rocket engine. In general, surface detonations are a poor, poor way to change the momentum of large objects.

Everyone seen "Armageddon"? They drill down into the asteroid, and plant the bomb deep. That is to contain the explosion, and make sure most of the energy gets deposited directly into the fragments of asteroid, making them fly off in various directions.

 

[Grymar]

One note on the thought of diverting an asteroid with nukes...if it isn't an iron asteroid (many are rock or dust), you risk shattering it, which doesn't help a bit.

If you have a 1,000,000 ton single impactor or 1000 1000-ton impactors, the energy and thus destructive power is still the same.

If you are going to hit it, do it early and make sure it MOVES.

 

[Umbran]

Not sure about the extent of the EMP.

That depends upon the weapon. Nukes and be created to have various effects.

For example, the old "neutron bomb" - more of the energy goes into producing free neutrons (which will kill people), so the weapon does minimal damage to buildings and infrastructure, but a great deal of the population dies.

Similarly, you can design a weapon such that a larger fraction of the energy is in electromagnetic radiation, instead of alpha or beta particles - the thing is designed to create an EMP, specifically.