You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

beoShaffer comments on Asteroids and spaceships are kinetic bombs and how to prevent catastrophe - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Troshen 25 February 2013 11:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (30)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: beoShaffer 26 February 2013 04:01:15AM *  1 point [-]

I'm not an expert on astrophysics, or millitary technology. Luckily, I have a friend who is an expert on both and has super-hard science fiction world building as his hobby. So I'm just going to quote him on why this isn't as big a deal as people think.

A related issue is the use of spacecraft as weapons against ground targets. This is unlikely, to say the least. As mentioned above, a sectional density of 10 tons/m2 is required to make it through the atmosphere with a reasonable amount of velocity remaining. While common ships might reach this threshold, they are almost certain to fail structurally long before impact. When they break up, the pieces are unlikely to retain sufficient sectional density to do damage. The result is a high-altitude airburst, which, given expected vessel sizes, is unlikely to do significant damage. It has even been suggested that vessels be intentionally designed to break up on atmospheric entry to reduce the risk to people on the ground.

This is from a recent paper meant as an introduction the theoretical space warfare community -of course that is a thing- consensus with an emphasis on what are called plausible mid-future scenarios.

Comment author: gwern 26 February 2013 04:16:23AM 3 points [-]

This is from a recent paper meant as an introduction the theoretical space warfare community -of course that is a thing- consensus with an emphasis on what are called plausible mid-future scenarios.

Of course it's a thing. It's actually much more interesting than regular space opera stuff like Honor Harrington. If you have a spare day, read through Project Rho. (I drew on them a bunch for my own space warfare essay.)

Comment author: ikrase 27 February 2013 09:34:23PM 2 points [-]

I love Project Rho!

Weaponization of engines is also possible although since we lost the promise and the peril of the 1950s it looks like there are going to be no high-power non-chemical engines.

What about private nuclear cores? Could be an issue.

Asteroid strikes are an entirely different issue of course.