EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 189
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24253 Posts
On January 31 2015 13:10 IgnE wrote: Oof that's a lot of money. #worth. I think the real question is who will be the first country to detonate a nuke in space. Wallbase was the site I was thinking of. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On January 31 2015 13:25 GreenHorizons wrote: #worth. I think the real question is who will be the first country to detonate a nuke in space. Wallbase was the site I was thinking of. Well it is illegal to do, and in terms of practicality... Not really sure how useful it is in war. | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On January 31 2015 13:00 IgnE wrote: It's not metal debris from the casing. I'm talking about radioactive material. Well our sun emits extremely high volumes of radiation and our planet absorbs that fairly well and nothing human made will ever emit radiation like the sun so we should be alright there. As for the physical materials themselves, I think we'd be ok? I am no expert but I don't think fragments of radioactive material landing in a random area are likely to cause problems issues more serious then a building fire or damaged road (I guess we could get unlucky and have it hit a power plant). Given that a nuke blast reaches over 50 million F and atomospheric rentry "only" applies about 3000F I guess the material would make it to the surface if it hit us. I don't think it causes any serious damage though. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24253 Posts
On January 31 2015 13:30 FiWiFaKi wrote: Well it is illegal to do, and in terms of practicality... Not really sure how useful it is in war. Vulgar display of power? We have already sent conventional weapons to blow up stuff in orbit. Plus we have to get information on if the nukes would be useful in our defense against an So my guess is that we try to blow up something that comes close to earths orbit as a why we would actually do it. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On January 30 2015 04:52 Acrofales wrote: For text and blocks of solid color I would use png in the final format too. The problem with jpeg is that it will create artifacts, depending on the compression level used it could even render your text illegible (especially if you resize as well). JPEG is especially good for images with many different colours and borders and edges, and especially if the edges are not very sharp. It's not meant for images with big blocks of a single color with sharp edges, where artifacts will be very noticeable (and irritating to look at). Sorry for being late to the party, but yes, definitely png over jpeg if it is not a pure photo. Main issue for me is how jpg sometimes doesn't keep white as white, it turns into some noisy grey, which frankly looks horrible, especially if you view the picture on a white background, at which point it looks extremely repulsive. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On January 31 2015 13:49 IgnE wrote: Seems like x-rays and gamma rays from the sun are different from particles with a half life in the atmosphere? How can the magnetosphere protect us from radioactive particle debris spread across the atmosphere? Maybe lower earth orbit is far enough away, but how do we know? Your argument doesn't sound compelling to me. Can you just burn nuclear waste up? That doesn't sound right. No you can't burn nuclear waste up, that'd just spread it out with the ashes. Question would if the waste (that goes into earth atmosphere, you don't have to bother with what stays in orbit) is spread out enough over the earth surface so that we don't have to bother. Would depend on high up you detonate etc, but I don't know enough number related to this to make an estimate of how bad it'd be for a "typical" bomb in "typical" orbit. I would guess that it's pretty harmless if you shoot it out in far orbit though, like geostationary or something. On January 31 2015 12:35 FiWiFaKi wrote: What would a nuclear bomb explosion look like in space? As for how it'd look... Hmm, you probably wouldn't get a fireball, without atmosphere, right? So maybe you wouldn't see much more than the essentially point-like light from the explosion itself (safety notice: don't look directly at nuclear explosion). At most some firework-streaks out from burning pieces, but I'd imagine the explosion is so powerful that everything will evaporate, so probably won't be any larger pieces left. In fact, reading from here, they say that for a 20kt nuclear weapon you hit the peak in visible light about 10-100ms, when the radius is a few 100 meters, then fading light (from a second pulse) over a second or so, so I guess up to order of magnitude a km radius. How strong would the light be? Let's compare to the sun. The sun outputs 3.3*10^31 J per day, source. The largest bomb (the Tsar bomb) was 2.1*10^17J, source. The geostationary orbit is 3.6*10^7 m, source. The distance to the sun is 1.5*10^11 m, source. There are 60*60*24 = 8.6*10^4 seconds in a day. So the sun radiates 3.3*10^31 /( 8.6*10^4) = 3.8*10^26 J per second. As radiation diminishes with the square of the distance, this corresponds to 3.8*10^26 * (3.6*10^7)^2/(1.5*10^11)^2 J = 2.2*10^19 J per second, or roughly 100 times as much as the nuclear bomb. So the tsar bomb in geostationary orbit would hit you with about as much energy as 0.01 second of sunlight, but spread out over maybe 0.1-1 second. Not sure how much of the bomb energy goes into visible light (and not sure how that goes for the sun either for that matter), so I'll just assume that is similar for the sun and the bomb, which may be completely wrong, sorry. Anyway, assuming they are about similar, it'd probably be visible even daytime, as a short fading flash in the sky, and it would bring daytime light to the planet for a split second at night. if the bomb goes of in low earth orbit, around 2*10^6 m above the surface, source, it is a factor (3.6*10^7)^2/(2*10^6)^2 = 320 times more powerful as seen from the surface just below the bomb. It'd then correspond to around 3 seconds of sun squeezed into 0.1 seconds + afterglow. So would outshine the sun for a split second, wear sunprotection factor 500+. Well, that's as far as I'll take the back-of-the-envelope calculations. Note that the fact that I dont know how much energy goes into visible light kindof makes the results unreliable (could very well differ many orders of magnitude between the sun and a bomb), but this is as much as I'll do.  | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On January 31 2015 12:35 FiWiFaKi wrote: What would a nuclear bomb explosion look like in space? "Would"? It looks like this: ![[image loading]](http://www.nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Nuclear-Space-Detonation.gif) http://www.nerdist.com/2014/11/heres-what-a-nuclear-bomb-detonating-in-space-looks-like/ | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
Although this bomb was 400km above the surface, while the end of the atmosphere is generally considered to be 600-700km. It would have been nice if the bomb was larger too (Tsar was 50mt vs 1.4mt). But thanks for the gif, interesting for sure. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On January 31 2015 17:32 FiWiFaKi wrote: Not as exciting as I would have expected. Although this bomb was 400km above the surface, while the end of the atmosphere is generally considered to be 600-700km. It would have been nice if the bomb was larger too (Tsar was 50mt vs 1.4mt). But thanks for the gif, interesting for sure. why would you expect things to look more exciting in space? There is no environment to interact with, so everything will in general be more boring, round and straight. Compare to good old atmospheric effects and gravity giving the mushroom shape. | ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
![[image loading]](http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs2/1095919_o.gif) | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
And apparently according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion the highest nuclear explosion took place at an altitude of 335 miles, which is in space as far as I know. Unfortunately there's no footage of it  | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24253 Posts
On February 01 2015 00:05 jello_biafra wrote: I think the underwater nuclear explosions are pretty cool. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f2f6zb7Fe8 And apparently according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion the highest nuclear explosion took place at an altitude of 335 miles, which is in space as far as I know. Unfortunately there's no footage of it Could you imagine all the dead sea life that floated to the top after that explosion? | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On February 01 2015 01:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Could you imagine all the dead sea life that floated to the top after that explosion? the islands in the pacific where the US did its bomb tests are still high contaminated and human population around those sites still has very high cancer rates. | ||
KwarK
United States44242 Posts
On February 01 2015 01:31 Skilledblob wrote: the islands in the pacific where the US did its bomb tests are still high contaminated and human population around those sites still has very high cancer rates. And lets not forget the giant lizards and the Tokyo incident. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
worst: boston idk lol | ||
| ||
