[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 11 KB, 320x240, 131.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3781097 [Reply] [Original]

What would happen if we let a nuke off in space?

Would the energy from the blast keep moving and destroy other planets?

>> No.3781103

>energy...keep moving

>> No.3781113

The only things fired off would be supercharged fallout, which would blast off into space at a pretty slow rate, and basically accomplish nothing, harming nobody.

>> No.3781114

The energy from the blast decreases with the distance r from the explosion point as <span class="math">\frac{1}{r^3}[/spoiler], assuming the explosion is isotropic. Only a tiny fraction of the whole energy would reach a given planet, not because of dissipation but because the solid angle (cf wikipedia) at which the explosion point sees the planet is extremely tiny.

>> No.3781119
File: 237 KB, 936x1400, cutey_Emma_genau.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

>> No.3781121

The damage done in a nuclear blast is largely done through thermal energy and pressure differential. These wouldn't have an effect in space, so the only energy released would be through EM radiation (light)

>> No.3781125

http://tinyurl.com/3ntz8jn

>> No.3781131

>>3781097
Let's clarify how this energy is transmitted. The nuclear blast would release energy in two forms: light, and momentum of whatever particles are related to the blast.

Light probably won't be enough to destroy a planet (although it could heat it excessively), but if a large enough mass of particles conceivably could destroy something.

Supernovas are technically massive nuclear explosions.

>> No.3781136

stars are nuclear explosions

>> No.3781137
File: 18 KB, 341x270, 3613653691_408d6eeaf4_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

silly

>> No.3781157

>>3781136
More like extremely slow nuclear burns.