Nukes Against Earth-Impacting Asteroids

TopSpin writes "Flight International reports that scientists at the Marshall Space Flight Center have developed designs for an array of asteroid interceptors wielding 1.2-megaton B83 nuclear warheads. The hypothetical mission for these designs is based on an Apophis-sized Earth impactor 2 to 5 years out. According to NASA, 'Nuclear standoff explosions are assessed to be 10-100 times more effective [at deflection] than the non-nuclear alternatives analyzed in this study." On April 13, 2029, Apophis will pass closer to earth than geosynchronous satellites orbit.

I, for one, welcome our...

[Will the Chill (78436)]

extinction-level-event nuke-shielded overlords!

-WtC

*please insert sig*

Re:I, for one, welcome our...

[Compholio (770966)]

I, for one, welcome our... extinction-level-event nuke-shielded overlords!

Kree Hol Mel.... Apophis!

Re:I, for one, welcome our...

[boaworm (180781)]

Dont worry, TFA clearly states:

According to the WSS, there are no known safety issues associated with the B83.

A good use for enhanced radiation devices

[rben (542324)]

I read a novel, I can't remember which, where the author made a great case for using enhanced radiation weapons against asteroids instead of conventional nuclear devices. His argument was that a non-impacting explosion using an enhanced radiation device might be able to divert even a fragile asteroid without necessarily breaking it up. The radiation from the weapon would transfer it's energy evenly to the surface of the asteroid. (Not exactly, but way better than a regular nuke) That would blow away the top layer of the asteroid on the side facing the blast, pushing the asteroid in the opposite direction. A series of such blasts might be able to divert the asteroid without causing it to break up.

I'm sure there are problems with the idea, but it seems logical to me.

Re:S.T.U.P.I.D.

[Plutonite (999141)]

Save rather than slaughter? I find your disregard for our alien overlords' lives utterly disgusting!

*picks up phone and calls PETA. Or something.*

Re:S.T.U.P.I.D.

[professionalfurryele (877225)]

Yeah, but not unconditionally surrender. This was to prevent the Great War mistakes. Japan had seriously violated just about every reasonable practice of war, and the dropping of the atom bomb shortened the war, and help stop them.
Japan was not going to surrender in two weeks, they were via diplomatic back channels suing for peace, this is not the same as offering unconditional surrender. In the end the Japanese still insisted that they be allowed to keep their Emporer, and the allies agreed to this demand, instead of being belligerent. I don't know where you got this myth that the Japanese were willing to surrender unconditionally, but the whole point of further increasing the size of their armed services during and after Okinawa was to make taking the islands of Japan as much like the battle for Okinawa as possible. That would have resulted in extreme causalities on both sides. The idea was that by a few tens of thousands of casualties the Americans and their allies would agree to more favourable terms than unconditional surrender. Heck if it had been like Okinawa they might even have managed to force those terms, which would have been a disaster.
The Japanese were determined to fight on to get a better peace deal. They had already lost the war so of course they were suing for peace. The only question remains, is it right to target military installations in the cities of your enemy during a time of war to force his surrender, knowing that tens of thousands of civilians will die. If you believe the allies were right to demand unconditional surrender (which I do), and if you believe that the Americans should have kept their nerve conducting the invasion and no accepted a lesser peace, then one is forced to ask the following question. Which course of action would cost more civilian lives, more destruction of infrastructure, and more military lives. The answer to all three is invasion. Dropping the bomb saved lives, civilian, military, and preserved what little remained of Japans infrastructure.
It is to my mind, the only time in history dropping the bomb would be acceptable, because of the unique set of circumstances at the time.

Re:S.T.U.P.I.D.

[vertinox (846076)]

The Japanese were determined to fight on to get a better peace deal. They had already lost the war so of course they were suing for peace. The only question remains, is it right to target military installations in the cities of your enemy during a time of war to force his surrender, knowing that tens of thousands of civilians will die.

I dunno... Lets ask what the Allied High Commanders and Staff thought:

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

Report from the post war United States Strategic Bombing Survey

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

And my favorite from the guy who actually encouraged Einstein to write FDR, Leo Szilard

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hi roshima_and_Nagasaki#Opposition [wikipedia.org]

So yeah... According to some of the major members of the US military and those who took part in the Manhattan project, the bombs were unneeded.

Re:S.T.U.P.I.D.

[master_p (608214)]

If you simply wanted to stop the Japanese, why didn't you simply drop the bomb on Fujiyama (for example)? I think that the sight of a giant volcano being blown to smithereens would have been just as effective as dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The sad truth is you wanted to test the bomb as well as show to the Soviet Union that you have some big guns.

Re:S.T.U.P.I.D.

[professionalfurryele (877225)]

Alright Woodrow Wilson, if thats what you want to believe.

I firmly believe that Hitler was helped by the fact that he was able to convince many Germans that the treaty of Versaille was unfair because the 'November Criminals' had signed it while Germany still had some effective military and could still fight the war. Coupled with the fact that the terms of the treaty were humiliating themselves (full blame for the war placed on Germany, reparations, Sudentenland handed over to the new Czechoslovakia, splitting Germany in two). Unconditional surrender is not about humiliation. The requirement of unconditional surrender existed because the conduct of those states with which the allies were fighting required wholesale removal of thier leadership and replacement by an authority that would be cast iron allies of the West. Unconditional surrender was just another way of saying to the militarist leaders of Japan "we will dismantle your government, and you will be tried for war crimes".

Re:S.T.U.P.I.D.

[Atheose (932144)]

While your opinion with regards to humiliation is admirable, your knowledge of this specific history is nonexistent. After being given unconditional surrender, we went into Japan and helped them in every way possible. We spent billions of dollars helping them rebuild, created a newer and more efficient infrastructure and shared most of our technology with them. We did not humiliate them--we treated them like equals. To quote wikipedia, "MacArthur and his GHQ staff helped a devastated Japan rebuild itself, institute a democratic government, and chart a course that made Japan one of the world's leading industrial powers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Japan/ [wikipedia.org]

MacArthur supervised the occupation of Japan, and made sure that the Japanese food network was the first thing reconstructed; he even forbid the US forces from eating any of the scarce Japanese food. Democracy flourished, and MacArthur and emperor Hirohito became friends.

Please do not accuse the United States of attempting to humiliate Japan, because there is simply no credibility to that statement.

Re:S.T.U.P.I.D.

[professionalfurryele (877225)]

The estimated American casualties alone for the invasion of Japan are around two to four times that. Now consider that they are better equipped and supplied than their conscripted Japanese adversary who would have suffered far worse. In addition most of the Japanese casualties would be civilian.
I'm certainly not glorifying the killing of civilians. However, if I presented to you a choice. Kill a quarter of a million Japanese now, or kill half a million Americans and 4 million Japanese over three to four months of bloody combat, what would you choose? If you choose to kill four million more people just because you don't like the word nuclear or because you think in some way being shot is better than dieing in giant fireball, then I believe you to be a cold heartless bastard.
Hell the United States is still handing out purple hearts of 1945 manufacture because of the anticipated casualties of the Japanese campaign were higher than the sum total of wounded or dead servicemen in every war since.
I suggested what the Japanese intent was. They believed they could break their 'inferior' American foe. The Americans had plans for Olympic which forecast many more casualties that the Japanese thought the Americans could take. All you have done is prove my point, the Americans would have accepted the high casualties and pushed on, since they planned for them anyway. The bottom line is that while the Japanese hoped to bring the war to an end with tens of thousands of casualties by breaking the American will to fight, that was not going to happen. You are suggesting an option (American capitulation to the Japanese plan) which was never on the table to begin with.

Re:S.T.U.P.I.D.

[professionalfurryele (877225)]

There is considerable debate on this issue as far as I know. Militarily the Soviet Union posed far more of a threat to the short and long term security of the civilians of Japan (it's not like what happened to Berlin was a secret, or what would happen to eastern Europe wasn't known). There is however one thing that is clear. The atomic bomb gave Emporer Hirohito (and to some extent Togo) the excuse he was looking for the push for an end to the war on all fronts. Civilians would understand surrender faced with this new terrifying weapon. The coup attempt that resulted from the repeated attempts to surrender was probably far smaller than it would have been without the bomb. The terms of the surrender were sufficient for the allies. The last one is the key. Without the bomb, would the Japanese have accepted unconditional surrender (with the exception of the retention of the Emporer) if the allies did not have the bomb? Maybe, but we know four of the big six wanted to reject the Potsdam declaration out of hand until the extent of the Soviet attacks became known, and the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then it was split 3-3. Without the intervention of Emporer Hirohito (who certainly considered the bomb important) this deadlock may have lasted.
I don't know what the result would have been without the bomb. Perhaps the Japanese would have continued fighting until it was clear that the Soviets were preparing to invade Korea, or perhaps the Japanese islands themselves. It is possible that without the bomb the Japanese would have used losing territory to the Soviet Union as a bargaining chip against the Americans to get more favourable terms.
Your point about American B-17 raids on Japan is a good one. It is important to remember these were small nukes. The building directly under the bomb survived the explosion in Hiroshima. This does strongly suggest that the bomb was not, in the military leaderships mind, a deciding factor, considering that the death toll in Tokyo from fire bombing was higher than in Hiroshim or Nagasaki through the atomic bomb. However, the bomb is more than a incendiary weapon. I believe the Emporer said it best in his radio address to the Japanese people:
"The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage."
The key word being terrible. The atomic bomb, more so than any other weapon, was terrifying. It is this terror that gave the Emporer the option of offering surrender (along with the Soviet invasion).

A near-miss in 2029?

[by Anonymous Coward]

If it's not going to hit Earth, will Skynet or the terminators even care?

Apophis should be able to be destroyed...

[nebaz (453974)]

with an alternate reality gateway, and a crack commando team consisting of a linguist with allergies, a wise cracking Colonel, a brilliant astrophysicist, and someone with a horrible gastronomical infection. Also some grenades.

Re:

[BearRanger (945122)]

Depends on what it's made of. . .it would be much safer to just open a hyperspace window and have it pass through the Earth. No grenades necessary. ;-)

APOP-Whut?

[Crypto Gnome (651401)]

In case you were wondering, Apophis is the Greek form of the name for the Egyptian Demon Apep [wikipedia.org].

Otherwise known as the personification of all that is evil.

Re:APOP-Whut?

[WIAKywbfatw (307557)]

"In case you were wondering, Apophis is the Greek form of the name for the Egyptian Demon Apep."

Thanks. Because if there's one thing that you can be sure about the average Slashdot reader it's that none of us has ever seen an episode of Stargate SG-1, and thus the name Apophis, and associating that name with evil personified, would be totally new to us all.

Quick !

[jfclavette (961511)]

Get Ben Affleck's spacesuit ready.

Re:Quick !

[Farmer Tim (530755)]

Get Ben Affleck's spacesuit ready.

OK, I've drilled holes in the helmet and emptied the oxygen tank...

FUD alert..

[fadeaway (531137)]

Apophis was lowered to 0 on the Torino scale sometime last fall. I'm not sure why it even warranted a mention in this particular context..

Re:FUD alert..

[daeg (828071)]

"Apophis-sized" implying that the plans would be equally valid for similarly sized bodies even with Apophis missing us in a few decades.

Re:

[sholden (12227)]

Because that didn't change its size...

Re:FUD alert..

[QuantumG (50515)]

Apophis is a perfect example of how flawed the current system for identifying potentially hazardous near-earth asteroids is. A two body analysis showed that it was on a collision course, but a more intensive three body analysis showed it would miss by a lot. Thing is, the opposite could potentially also be true - a two body analysis might show that an object is not a threat when, in fact, it is and a more heavy analysis would show that. We need more resources dedicated to this very real threat to our planet. Only with early detection do we have any chance of deflecting a planet killer.

this is not armageddon NASA :)

[wizardforce (1005805)]

exploding nuclear weapons from a distance only works if the asteroid is fairly solid, like the metallic [M-type] asteroids. The more porous asteroids [there seem to be many] don't seem to respond as well to such explosions. As for the Armageddon-type way of dealing with asteroids, you just made a single asteroid into a hail of dangerous shrapnel. Although if we exploded a nuclear charge [a smaller one] that only tosses up a part of the asteroid and direct the shrapnel away from Eath, the shrapnel would go in one direction [wherever your plan dictates] and the asteroid generally goes in the opposing direction, knocking it off course. over a period of several years even a small orbital change will result in Earth being safe for now. [hopefully we have that much time if not start sipping your favorite alcoholic beverage :) ]

Re:

[Reaperducer (871695)]

The more porous asteroids don't seem to respond as well to such explosions.

You say this based on... what? Exactly how many nuclear weapons has NASA detonated in space while I was asleep?

Re:this is not armageddon NASA :)

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

you just made a single asteroid into a hail of dangerous shrapnel.

Shrapnel == Greater Cross Section
Greater Cross Section == Atmosphere has greater effect on projectile
Atmosphere has greater effect on projectile == Energy dissapated over wider area
Energy dissapated over wider area == No boom today. Boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow.

Re:this is not armageddon NASA :)

[myowntrueself (607117)]

No boom today. Boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow.

Oh thats just such a Russian attitude...

Why do we need nukes?

[darkhitman (939662)]

Couldn't we simply send a small spacecraft to intercept the asteroid? Say, a small craft, probably with one primary weapon that has plenty of ammo... probably shaped like a triangle, I think. It could use this "weapon" to then shoot at any incoming asteroids.

Of course, the weapon wouldn't be as powerful as a nuke, and would probably split the asteroid in, say, half. The ship would then have to shoot both halves, breaking them again into half, creating four asteroids where just one was originally. The pilot would repeat this process until the asteroid is broken into such small pieces that they'll be deflected by earth's atmosphere.

I'm still working on how the ship and asteroid fragments would warp to the other side of the field when they hit the edges, though... probably why NASA decided against this approach. That, and they wanted to avoid ripping off The Last Starfighter too much.

I'm definitely following this story!

[zegota (1105649)]

Because I don't want to miss a thing!

What about other options?

[Nyeerrmm (940927)]

They claim 10-100 times more effective than other methods. First of all they dont define more effective. Second of all, they seem to dismiss ideas like a gravity tug out of hand as not developed enough.

The idea of throwing nukes at an object of potentially unknown size bugs me, especially when much more controlled options exist. All that needs to be done is to nudge the NEO out of small zones known as "keyholes" that are small, finite portions of space where the pull of the Earth will push the object into a collision course on its next orbit rather than another random non-intersecting orbit.

A fairly massive object (something a Delta IV Heavy could launch) would be perfectly capable of handling an Apophis sized object with enough lead time (on the order of years, but certainly less than decades), by flying in formation with the object in the right location to shift its orbit slightly. This is a lot easier than Apollo, which we pulled off in less than 10 years, so to dismiss it as too difficult is ridiculous, and it seems a lot more responsible than launching nukes at an object we dont fully understand.

Just my thoughts anyway.

Re:What about other options?

[Reziac (43301)]

Occurs to me that the predictability of an orbit altered by a gentle nudge may well exceed that of an orbit altered by a solid whack.

Would you rather the object remained trackable and predictable, or became unstable and maybe whangs into us a few orbits later?

worse yet ...

[blandthrax (575357)]

April 13, 2029 is a Friday.

April 13, 2029

[SetupWeasel (54062)]

My 51st birthday. If it does hit, at least I will have some student loans left when I die.

Re:

[Gregb05 (754217)]

April 13, 2029 is indeed a Friday. Look it up yourselves if you don't believe me. Luckily, we'll all be dead in December 2012, so this asteroid's simply to finish off the rest of the life on the planet.

Re:Uh oh...

[onemorechip (816444)]

Or, you can use the Doomsday Algorithm [wikipedia.org].

Re:what if they miss hteir shot

[LWATCDR (28044)]

I have to wonder if you where just kidding or are don't know anything about nuclear weapons.
From the 40s up through I think the 70s many nuclear weapons where detonated in the atmosphere. While it was a really bad plan life pretty much kept on living. A miss would probably not hit the earth and a launch accident wouldn't cause a nuclear detonation. A common method of safeing a nuclear weapon involves filling the pit with a neutron absorbing wire. Once the weapon leaves the atmosphere a motor will pull the wire out of the core and only then the weapon will be capable of nuclear detonation. Not only that most modern weapons are much cleaner then the bombs of the 50s.
So I wouldn't to see them launching them daily I think risk to benefit ratio is pretty good.

Re:clean nukes are just old propaganda

[Muhammar (659468)]

It is not true at all that "most modern weapons are much cleaner than the bombes of the 50s. In fact the fusion yield of modern weapons accounts for less than 40% of the total yield, most of the yield actually comes from fission of the uranium container that doubles as a reflector. "clean weapons" can be produced by using non-fissionable reflector like lead, this causes at leat 40% increase in total weight of the weapon design while reducing the total yield approximately to one half. The example of a super-clean bomb is Tsar Bomba that exploded at about 52MT, a lead-reflected test of a 100MT design.

For military the intense radiation from fission of the uranium reflector is an "added bonus". The premium in thermonuclear warhead design is on light weight and narrow diameter (long narrow-cone re-entry vehicles have much better precision than fat ones) in compromise with low cost (low consumption of expensive materials like tritium and plutonium) and high reliability.

The clean weapon was a temporary fad in 50s and early 60s, it was used by rival weapon design team to justify existence of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and was oversold, being seized upon by politicians it got disproportionate coverage in print - but it never resulted in a weaponised design. The reality is that even a "clean" bomb designs are still an order of magnitude dirtier than Hiroshima and don't offer any military advantage so they are not stockpiled. The peaceful uses of clean nukes like digging harbors and re-livening natural gas and oil fields never materialized as it turned out that produced crater (or gas) was unpleasantly radioactive (because of neutron-induced radiation, with long-lived radioisotopes like C-14 and tritium)

Re:what if they miss hteir shot

[Deadstick (535032)]

You won't have time to die of radiation...if they miss the asteroid, it's gonna get you first.

rj

Re:what if they miss hteir shot

[haakondahl (893488)]

Even assuming that you are joking, this is a non-issue. The atmosphere and magnetosphere shield us from a metric butt-ton of solar radiation. Space is not pristine, and at risk of being damaged. Space is trying to kill us all, whether by pulling us atom from atom (vacuum), freezing us solid, radiating us 'til we're crispy, or throwing large rocks at us. Just offa the top of my head, my guess is that you could probably fly through the location of a thermonuclear blast in space minutes after the event.

Re:nukes in the atmosphere

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

Plenty of Nukes have been set off high in our atmosphere.

The radiation from the nuke isn't the problem with that. The main effects are (a) EMP and interfering with electrical equipment, and (b) fucking up the magnetosphere, and possibly reducing the Earth's shielding from cosmic radiation. Neither of which are good, but better to risk those effects than the certainty of a large asteroid hit.

-b.

Re:nukes overhead

[Muhammar (659468)]

Nuke explosion high in the orbit was tested as a radiation shield in antibalistic missile experiments (Operation Argus, by Nick Christofilos of Lawrence Livermore fame) and it was found ineffective for the defense purpose. A side-product of these experiments with artificial radiation shields was discovery of Van Allen radiation belts.

It was later found by accident that multimegatonn explosion high in the orbit can dump lots of charged particles (mostly high-energy electrons) into Van Allen belts where they persist for many weeks during which time they gradually degrade solar panels and electronics of satelites - this happened in 60s (after operation Starfish Prime about 5 satelites went silent...)

Re:oh noez!

[maz2331 (1104901)]

It would go off but would look nothing like an atmospheric burst. It would be a really bright spherical event that mostly produced an incredibly intense flux of gamma rays, with some neutrons as well. The only actual matter to heat up would be the bomb itself, so the size of the visible explosion would be small, but unbelivably bright. The idea is to cause this really intense light and gamma ray burst to heat the surface of the asteroid enough to cause vaporization and ablation. That would cause a small thrust that changes the direction of the asteroid enough to miss the Earth.

Re:oh noez!

[rbanffy (584143)]

It would be completely different.

The first destructive effect is caused by the radiated energy itself, but most of the destructive power of an atmospheric nuclear detonation comes from the quick heating and displacement of huge quantities of air that creates the explosive shock-wave.

In space, only the radiated energy of the detonation remains. While it would be sufficient to deflect an asteroid, a nuke is nowhere near as destructive in deep space than it is on Earth.

Re:Yes

[onemorechip (816444)]

I'd also like to know how the shark moves through the air.

Re:Star Wars Fakeout

[Reaperducer (871695)]

This isn't the conspiracy you're looking for.

They can go about their business.

Move along.

Re:Star Wars Fakeout

[Philotic (957984)]

We're spending it on Star Wars.

Solution: Assassinate George Lucas.

Re:Star Wars Fakeout

[Chandon Seldon (43083)]

The chances of getting hit by an asteroid are extremely small.

That's true. The potential damage from getting hit is very, very large though - and the probability isn't quite small enough to completely discount. Major meteor impacts have occurred with some frequency on a geological time scale - it seems prudent to actually do the risk assessment and take appropriate action if necessary.

As for the foreign energy independence issue, sure that's important. That doesn't mean that astronomers who specialize in asteroids should drop their careers for it any more than you should drop your career (whatever it is) to worry about potential meteor impacts.

Re:Star Wars Fakeout

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

The large damage from theoretically possible asteroid impacts doesn't make it any more likely that they will happen. That's a statistical fallacy.

Huh? Of course the damage it would do doesn't make the event more likely, but it makes the event more serious.

If one event is likely, but has minimal impact if it occurs, it might be worth ignoring, in order to concentrate on a less likely event that has disastrous consequences.

Since a large asteroid impact could be a mass extinction event, something capable of wiping out our entire ecosystem -- not to mention civilization -- even if it's unlikely, it's worth working to prevent. Compared to that, everything except the possibility of nuclear war (or equally disastrous environmental collapse) pales in comparison.

Re:

[dircha (893383)]

"If we were spending this money on actual threat priorities, we'd be spending it getting out of the crosshairs of foreign energy suppliers."

But the money being spent on this research and all active missile defense research absolutely pales in comparison to what we are spending in Iraq. Yes, we should get out of Iraq - out of the "crosshairs of foreign energy supplies" - but that doesn't mean we can't also continue to pursue missile defense technologies, and secure our borders while we're at it.

In my opinion

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

You've just proven that you don't understand statistics. Your odds of being killed by an asteroid are much less than by lightning, because it is so much less likely to happen. Just because something kills lots of people when it extremely rarely happens doesn't mean it's more likely to happen. In fact, it's likely that no human has ever been killed by an asteroid.

People with actual ability to use statistics know that it's unlikely that anyone will be killed by an asteroid for hundreds of years, if not thousa