Some more Nuke-research...
I have found an old question in Google Answers (the page is not available but there was a cached version which I will paste below)
----------
Subject: Re: Nuclear Bomb in Outer Space
segwonk-ga: What would a nuclear explosion in outer space look like?
maxhodges-ga: Very interesting question!
I'm going to quote several sources, so you can see that a consensus
seems to have formed.
Q: How does an explosion in space differ from that on Earth?
A: It would appear as a point or globe of light, with no huge clouds of
smoke or vapor. Any such gases would diffuse very quickly. There
would also be no blast (pressure wave). That means a near miss by a
torpedo would cause no damage other than from radiation.
Q: No nuclear mushroom cloud?
A: Not in space. Fallout, irradiated dust resulting from matter vaporized
by the explosion, would also be absent. Nukes are less deadly in space,
with no atmospheric effects. Most space habitations would also have
protection from radiation, an expected hazard of space.
From, "The Science of Science Fiction" edited by Peter Nicholls:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394530101/qid=1046698588/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-6147980-5735243?v=glance&s=books
The main hazard of space nuclear explosions is EMP (electromagenetic pulse).
The output of an atomic detonation is:
1) Blast: An explosion creates a wall of air (shock wave) which moves
outward from the fireball. In the vacuum of space this does not occur.
There is a smaller wave of vaporized bomb material, but this is minor
at orbital distances.
2) Ionizing radiation: The X-rays, gamma rays, and neutrons would be
both absorbed by the atmosphere and lowered in intensity by the
distance from the bomb (Inverse scaling)
3) Fallout: It is already pretty nasty in space. If the weapon is in
orbit, most of the fallout will have decayed long before re-entry. If
all re-enters, it will be diluted rather majorly. The most serious
pollutant would be plutonium. It is lethal in inhaled concentrations
of one millionth of a gram. The weapon will contain many thousands
grams (which implies many billions of lethal doses).
The re-entering material will be vaporized into gas. The vast bulk
will never be deposited into mammal's lungs. Even the inhaled material
will tend to be less than millionth of a gram quantity. The true
danger depends on the strength of the so-called linear-dosage
hypothesis (which is the current official standard). This is the view
that health effects do not drop off below a minimum dosage, they just
get weaker or less likely. One of its various implications means, for
example, if 1 microgram causes one cancer, then if ten people inhale
only a tenth of a microgram, then, statistically, one should develop
tumors.
4) Light and heat: The light and heat should be diluted sufficiently
to minimize surface damage. (DON'T look directly at it!)
found on the Explosions in Space discussion board:
http://pub80.ezboard.com/feverythingspacefrm2.showMessage?topicID=17.topic
Again, in other words:
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.
This effects are elaborated here:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/conghand/nuclear.htm#REF17-4
A less well known effect of high altitude bursts, but also one with
potentially devastating consequences, is the artificial "pumping" of
the Van Allen belt with large numbers of electrons. The bomb-induced
electrons will remain trapped in these belts for periods exceeding one
year. All unhardened satellites traversing these belts in low earth
orbit could demise in a matter of days to weeks following even one
high altitude burst.
Elaborated here:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1997_h/h970716u.htm
For a detailed study of the effects of such an explosion on
communicaton satelites, read here:
http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee460/tiondose.html
----------
Then a couple of additional links:
What would an explosion in space look like?
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-08/899689009.Ph.r.html
Atomic Rocket: Space War: Weapons:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#nuke
Hope this helps! (Although you may have already found these links yourselves)
Jump to comment form
Comments
Hmm there's on cool looking explosion..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEILIf8VkgI
- too bad it's most likely just in atmosphere - and I'm not sure if it's a nuke..
Sure a nuke to fire a projectile would be possible.. But you'd need REALLY sturdy casing to get much of the energy in the projectile.. A way to get projetile form conventional explosives is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_Formed_Penetrator
I just don't know what would be required to do that with a nuke.. And if you don't have solid backing at least half of the energy is wasted on throwing the casing in opposite direction..
Hmm - the moon nazis might have nuke EFPs on moon surface.. - one should easily throw a projectile well over the escape velocity of moon. And unlike a rocket it would start with full velocity - so it would be really hard to dodge... It might be visually interesting as the explosion happens in moon surface rather than in empty space..
Something doesn't seem right to me. Okay, applying a match to a 200 litre drum of ethanol won't result in much as there is no oxygen to fuel the explosion, but with atomics they are their _own_ source of fuel.
Secondly. My understanding of an an explosion is that is the rapid, dramatic, expansion of stuff. I may be rowing against the tide here, but I think that the expansion of a 20 megatonne atomic will be something difficult to ignore, even in space.
So, consider a weapon that uses an encased round. Atmosphere is irrelevant, as the round is sealed. The explosion drives the bullet along the barrel (hopefully) in the direction of your target. Make a missile that has such a barrel as its payload. Now we have a missile whithin a missile. A missile that can be launched at a lesiurely 10-20 m/s, navigated in a circutous route to the target and then triggered to deliver a, say, 2 kilogramme bullet at around 200-300 m/s at the intended target. If you can position the missile correctly (hence the complicated route), the rest of the missile will be propelled backwards into another of your foes' craft.
E=mv^2, treated with due respect, is your friend.
C:\>
This was a very good finding, I got a lot good out of this. So, to sum it up, a nuke in space, when missed and just exploded somewhere in between the ships isn't actually too dangerous if you are far enough from it, but of course when it hits a solid material like a spaceship, the destruction is still pretty bad.
Fascinating.
Just like a space Nazi to leave the Earth with a weapon SUPER USELESS in space (speaking relatively about an object as lethal as an atomic bomb); however, I would argue that there would be less pure vacuum in a STAR BATTLE FIELD that one might think due to the presence of FORCE FIELDS and ARMADAS!
There is obviously a Germanic Da Vinci on the Moon planning
the many nuances necessary to keep the expensive equipment
from being needlessly damaged.
I believe that the individual problems of physics would make planning an invasion hilarious! I see the MooNazis moving their
squadrons of flying saucers (brilliant mechanisms of hypermotion susceptible to...(?) on their BIG BOARD furiously only to find the saucer to be a suitable launching pad in wilderness! Any invasion would have to multi-tiered and filled with bluffs and movements - let us not forget how much the Nazis love marching, drilling, and big words like preparedness!