
Asteroids are stronger, harder to destroy than previously thought - dnetesn
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-asteroids-stronger-harder-previously-thought.html
======
typedef_struct
That's why you need the best damn oil drillers in the world to plant the nuke.

~~~
tabtab
Based on the simulations, it takes the pieces a while to re-congregate. Thus,
you'd have to time the burst to have the particles as far apart as possible
when they arrive. I wonder if there's a significant radiation side-effect
risk? How much would the atmosphere absorb?

~~~
opwieurposiu
From 1945 to 1992, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including eight
underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megatons.

So keep the device down to a couple megaton and we should be "OK". (for
certain values of "OK")

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing)

------
stcredzero
This is why gravity tractors are so great. Gravity tractors are immune to
everything. (1) They are the honey badgers of asteroid deflection.

(1) Except short deadlines.

------
Jeff_Brown
I thought deflection was preferable to destruction, because it requires much
less energy. Is destruction what's needed only if the asteroid is discovered
too late to deflect it?

------
tabtab
Somebody went and Made Asteroids Great Again.

~~~
tabtab
_Yikes_ , that comment did _not_ make my Score Great Again, and it's too late
to delete. Lesson: avoid any jokes even remotely related to you-know-who.

