this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
92 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35312 readers
1199 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
 

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 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShaggyBlarney@lemmy.ca 26 points 8 months ago (2 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.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 28 points 8 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.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

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

[–] FictionalCrow@yiffit.net 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] JTskulk@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Patching you in.

[–] r_thndr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 8 months ago
[–] bouh@lemmy.world 8 points 8 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.

[–] luluApples@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nasal developed a reactor, orion iirc, that was basically nuclear pulse propulsion: a directed nuclear explosion would propel a jet of plasma on a shield on the back of the ship to propel it, and the ship would use regular explosion for propulsion.

I don't know the exact dynamic of the nuclear explosion. The temperature turns a lot of things into plasma indeed. But I suspect some construction of the bomb (specific layers with specific materials) could make some kind of frag work.

At the very least you can have an efficient plasma bomb anyway. Your frag is simply plasma in this case. Plasma is still matter that can have high kinetic energy, but it's very hot too and with specific electromagnetic properties.

In this case, the atomic explosion replaces your powder, and what matters is everything around it.

[–] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nasal developed a reactor

Autocomplete lol

a reactor, orion iirc, that was basically nuclear pulse propulsion:

Yep. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Im getting pretty stuffy this season I could go for a Nasal Reactor tbh.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 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

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 5 points 8 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.

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

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

[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 3 points 8 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.

[–] cali_ash@lemmy.wtf 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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 as much as possible as kinetic energy to an outer high-density layer to create extremly fast shrapnel.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

So a nuclear pipebomb

[–] DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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