Can ISS be destoryed by atomic bomb?

[lowerlowerhk]

As I know, the destructive power of atomic bomb to structures comes from shock waves and heat waves.

In space, there is no air to conduct shock waves, therefore only heat waves and high-speed fragments of the bomb itself can manage to damage the structure large orbiter like ISS.

The question is, will ISS break down into pieces if an atomic is detonated miles away in space?

 

[tori]

That's from 2012, right?

According to this paper, "in the absence of an atmosphere, blast disappears completely". So does thermal radiation (which is emitted outside of the nuke by heated atmosphere and ground).

High frequency radiation, on the other hand, can spread unrestricted in a vacuum. The lethal radius (caused by radiation alone) increases from a couple miles to hundreds of them. The same rule applies for EMP.

 

[Lucy]

According to this paper, "in the absence of an atmosphere, blast disappears completely". So does thermal radiation (which is emitted outside of the nuke by heated atmosphere and ground).

High frequency radiation, on the other hand, can spread unrestricted in a vacuum. The lethal radius (caused by radiation alone) increases from a couple miles to hundreds of them. The same rule applies for EMP.

So, the radiation kills those on board and the EMP takes care of the electrical systems... I'd call that pretty destroyed.

 

[TSPenguin]

Not directly on topic but an interesting read about high altitude atomic explosions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

 

[adamb193]

Or Call of Duty in the game the SAS detonate a Russian ICBM over Washington DC, near the ISS and blows it up into a million pieces.

 

[Sky Captain]

I`m not sure if there would significant EMP in vacuum. IIRC for EMP to form there are two requirements - an atmosphere and magnetic field. In space there is no atmosphere to be ionised.

For ISS to break up from atomic blast the bomb would have to be close enough to cause damage through explosive heating from intense x ray flash.

---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------

I found a calculator that allows to roughly calculate the damage from atomic blast in vacuum
http://www.5596.org/cgi-bin/nuke.php

Apparently for 100 kt bomb to cause significant physical damage to aluminum structure it would have to explode under 500 m distance from target.

 

[T.Neo]

It is true that blast mostly disappears in a vacuum (you still get a small blast resulting from the bomb itself), but thermal radiation (a subset of all the radiation in a nuclear explosion) does NOT need air to propagate. It simply radiates through space.

If you detonated a 1 megaton nuclear device say 10km from the ISS, I would expect minimal blast damage, medium to severe thermal damage and total damage to all electronic systems (including the electronic systems of everything in LEO) by the ionizing radiation.

Not sure if the crew would survive the ionizing radiation, but they would certainly not fare well being stranded in a nonfunctional spacecraft afterwards.

 

[garyw]

I`m not sure if there would significant EMP in vacuum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion

". Starfish Prime produced an artificial radiation belt in space which soon destroyed three satellites (Ariel, TRAAC, and Transit 4B all failed after traversing the radiation belt, while Cosmos V, Injun I and Telstar suffered minor degradation, due to some radiation damage to solar cells, etc. [2]). The radiation dose rate was at least 60 rads/day at four months after Starfish for a well-shielded satellite or manned capsule in a polar circular earth orbit [3], which caused NASA concern with regard to its manned space exploration programs."

 

[Dig Gil]

If the bomb was touching the ISS when exploding, then we could notice Kessler Syndrome happening...
Inside the ISS there's a controlled atmosphere, so every problem propagates easily.

Under vaccum, I've got a question: does the Nuke needs atmosphere/ground to generate the radiation? For a start, I don't think so. Therefore a nuclear blast in space is not much more than a dirty bomb on ground.

 

[SiberianTiger]

So it looks like nuclear missiles aren't the weapon of choice for space warfare in the real world?

 

[the.punk]

Under vaccum, I've got a question: does the Nuke needs atmosphere/ground to generate the radiation?.

No. Ionizing radiation does not need an atmosphere. But a shock wave needs matter.

 

[Urwumpe]

So it looks like nuclear missiles aren't the weapon of choice for space warfare in the real world?

Contrary - they are the weapon of mass satellite destruction of choice, since you can create the effect of a X-class solar flare with minimal effort and the effect scales better as on Earth - the relation between yield and damage is proportional in space, in Earth you have a cubic root relation between yield and damage.

One tiny bomb and you have disabled all satellites that are not especially strong radiation hardened and that often for eternity... the effect against satellites in the Van-Allen-Belt will be especially strong, since the belts capture and amplify the particle radiation.

 

[garyw]

So it looks like nuclear missiles aren't the weapon of choice for space warfare in the real world?

They can be if used right. Want you want is not the destructive force seen on the ground but the EMP side effects to take out communications, monitoring, survelliance and all that other stuff.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Well, that's unless the satellites are specially hardened and use EMP-resistant electronics. I can imagine that massive bombing in LEO would take out the civilian stuff, while the mission critical military satellites might survive.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, that's unless the satellites are specially hardened and use EMP-resistant electronics. I can imagine that massive bombing in LEO would take out the civilian stuff, while the mission critical military satellites might survive.

Note the tiny detail in my post "especially strong radiation hardened" You can protect the electronics from the radiation effects. Even military standards are just enough for protecting against weaker damage and they already come with a high price, for example you are limiting the maximum power output of emitters with the radiation protection. And it is impossible to protect solar arrays. You can find materials that are less sensible to ionizing radiation, but the differences are tiny.

And the radiation could still be enough to destroy your satellite, if it is just close enough - if you have enough radiation flux to vaporize your satellite, even a massive radiation protection will vaporize.

 

[Linguofreak]

It is true that blast mostly disappears in a vacuum (you still get a small blast resulting from the bomb itself), but thermal radiation (a subset of all the radiation in a nuclear explosion) does NOT need air to propagate. It simply radiates through space.

Well, to some degree it depends on what you mean by "thermal radiation".

Often "thermal radiation" means "infrared", and you do get alot more infrared from an atmospheric blast than a vacuum detonation. The air absorbs the x-rays from the bomb, heats up, and then glows red hot and re-emits the energy in the infrared and redder visible parts of the spectrum (an object that we see as "red" hot is actually emitting glowing alot more brightly in the infrared, we just can't see it).

But "thermal radiation" can also mean "blackbody radiation", which is the glow that an object at a given temperature gives off. At the temperatures of a newly detonated atomic bomb, the blackbody radiation is in the x-ray range. With no air to absorb the x-rays, the radiation doesn't get stepped down to the infrared by re-emission.

 

[T.Neo]

Fair enough, but I'd still expect some thermal radiation from a high-altitude detonation.

 

[Urwumpe]

Fair enough, but I'd still expect some thermal radiation from a high-altitude detonation.

Yes, but that would be secondary. also the plasma cloud of the bomb material will emit IR, once it has cooled down. Which can take a while.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

So if there's no blast wave from a nuke in space, how was Project Orion supposed to worK?

 

[TSPenguin]

So if there's no blast wave from a nuke in space, how was Project Orion supposed to worK?

Radiation pressure. Which is a blast wave in this sense.