Explosives (Hear Me Out)

[ZingidyZongxxx]

I know, I know, I can already hear you saying how weapons will never be in the game. But I'm not talking about using explosives as weapons. If I remember correctly, most of NASA's rockets could self destruct if they came too close to a city or lives were in danger. So why can't Kerbals do the same?

Space center buildings are planned to eventually be destroy-able, and fixing them will cost money in career mode. If a rocket goes off course and is about to hit one of these buildings, it would be nice to have the option to sacrifice your Kerbals for the greater good (money) or attempt to save them and possibly destroy a building in the process.

Although this could be added as a simple abort button that disintegrates the entire ship, I think having actual explosives that must be attached to ship would be better. This way, you have to decide whether or not you want to add some mass and cost to your rocket, or risk hitting something if it fails and costing yourself even more money. Okay, now you can yell at me and tell me why I'm wrong.

[Guest Brody_Peffley]

I know, I know, I can already hear you saying how weapons will never be in the game. But I'm not talking about using explosives as weapons. If I remember correctly, most of NASA's rockets could self destruct if they came too close to a city or lives were in danger. So why can't Kerbals do the same?

Space center buildings are planned to eventually be destroy-able, and fixing them will cost money in career mode. If a rocket goes off course and is about to hit one of these buildings, it would be nice to have the option to sacrifice your Kerbals for the greater good (money) or attempt to save them and possibly destroy a building in the process.

Although this could be added as a simple abort button that disintegrates the entire ship, I think having actual explosives that must be attached to ship would be better. This way, you have to decide whether or not you want to add some mass and cost to your rocket, or risk hitting something if it fails and costing yourself even more money. Okay, now you can yell at me and tell me why I'm wrong.

I like this idea. But having rtg will have a bigger explosions than with none since it uses radioactive material

[Skyrunner27]

I like this idea a lot. I was thinking about such a thing when planning a abort system.

[Sean Mirrsen]

If you're flying a rocket full of fuel, disintegrating it into a rain of hellfire over a city isn't the best option. In atmosphere, gratuitous use of parachutes is much more preferable - less mass, less debris, and you might even recover the rocket.

[ZingidyZongxxx]

If you're flying a rocket full of fuel, disintegrating it into a rain of hellfire over a city isn't the best option. In atmosphere, gratuitous use of parachutes is much more preferable - less mass, less debris, and you might even recover the rocket.

True, but parachutes in KSP tend to be just as destructive as explosives unless placed absolutely perfectly, especially on large ships. In KSP, there wouldn't be much debris or any flaming rocket fuel, since once a part is destroyed it's simply gone, no debris.

[lajoswinkler]

That's why we press the space key like maniacs.

I like this idea. But having rtg will have a bigger explosions than with none since it uses radioactive material

And why is that, exactly?

[Guest Brody_Peffley]

That's why we press the space key like maniacs.

And why is that, exactly?

Since it has plutonium or blutonium in kerbal. In any explosion it creates pressure which sets off the plutonium in a big released energy.

In real life Galileo probe smashed into jupiter setting off a nuclear bomb, Larger than it would on earth since the very intense pressure on jupiter.

[The Jedi Master]

That actually sounds cool. I approve.

[lajoswinkler]

Since it has plutonium or blutonium in kerbal. In any explosion it creates pressure which sets off the plutonium in a big released energy.

In real life Galileo probe smashed into jupiter setting off a nuclear bomb, Larger than it would on earth since the very intense pressure on jupiter.

No, that can't happen. Ever. In order to initiate a nuclear detonation, you need impressive calculations and explosive lens. Basically, a sudden and highly correct, intensive impulse to compress a subcritical object into prompt-critical.

If blasting a piece of fissionable material was enough to make a mushroom cloud, this civilization would cease to exist long ago because anyone with access to fissionable uranium could do it.

Why do you think there was Manhattan project with all those big name scientists working their equations like mad, if all you had to do was to strap a block of uranium to a bomb and press the button?

[leax256]

this thread has got me thinking, if we set off a big enough fusion bomb deep enough into jupiter, would that create a chain reaction that blows the entire atmosphere up into one huge fusion explosion?

[Diche Bach]

The bomb would have to be designed to resist Jupiter's incredible pressure and heat as it descended. I suspect that it would be impossible to get it very deep before the housing of the explosives, the controlling mechanism and the like would be destroyed by the incredible heat and pressure.

On the other hand, if the bomb was designed to be TRIGGERED once the incredible heat and pressure crossed some threshold then presumably it would be possible to detonate it fairly deep inside Jupiter's atmosphere.

Beyond those very simple constraints (probably only a few hundred trillion gabillion dollars to make the device with today's technology) I would guess that setting off a chain reaction to ignite all of Jupiter into one massive fusion explosion would be limited by two factors:

1. detonating deep enough that the surrounding pressure and heat was high enough to sustain a chain reaction;

2. Is the dilution of hydrogen (versus helium and other 'contaminants') sufficiently high and evenly mixed to sustain hydrogen fusion?

Helium is the heavier atom so I'm guessing that the distribution of hydrogen and helium in Jupiter's atmosphere changes as one descends closer to the core. Thus, it would seem to my naïve mind that the two contraints are opposing. (1) compels detonation as deep as possible, whereas presumably if you go too deep there will not be enough hydrogen to sustain a chain reaction.

[Guest Brody_Peffley]

The bomb would have to be designed to resist Jupiter's incredible pressure and heat as it descended. I suspect that it would be impossible to get it very deep before the housing of the explosives, the controlling mechanism and the like would be destroyed by the incredible heat and pressure.

On the other hand, if the bomb was designed to be TRIGGERED once the incredible heat and pressure crossed some threshold then presumably it would be possible to detonate it fairly deep inside Jupiter's atmosphere.

Beyond those very simple constraints (probably only a few hundred trillion gabillion dollars to make the device with today's technology) I would guess that setting off a chain reaction to ignite all of Jupiter into one massive fusion explosion would be limited by two factors:

1. detonating deep enough that the surrounding pressure and heat was high enough to sustain a chain reaction;

2. Is the dilution of hydrogen (versus helium and other 'contaminants') sufficiently high and evenly mixed to sustain hydrogen fusion?

Helium is the heavier atom so I'm guessing that the distribution of hydrogen and helium in Jupiter's atmosphere changes as one descends closer to the core. Thus, it would seem to my naïve mind that the two contraints are opposing. (1) compels detonation as deep as possible, whereas presumably if you go too deep there will not be enough hydrogen to sustain a chain reaction.

Since jupiter atmosphere are gasses. Does that mean we can put a antimatter bomb and make a hole? Since gasses can be moved and expanded. And you could easily get radioactive material from smoke detectors and have thermocoupler and just wait for it to generate power.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Brody_Peffley

[Eric S]

Since it has plutonium or blutonium in kerbal. In any explosion it creates pressure which sets off the plutonium in a big released energy.

In real life Galileo probe smashed into jupiter setting off a nuclear bomb, Larger than it would on earth since the very intense pressure on jupiter.

That doesn't sound right. In fact, not blowing up in the case of an impact was one of the design criteria of the RTGs used. I don't remember anyone mentioning it blowing up at the time, and none of the articles I can find still online mention it either.

If all of Galileo's plutonium were in the same place, this would be quite possible, as the critical mass would have been in the 9-10 kg range, and the two RTGs had 7.8 kg each. However, the RTGs were kept well apart, and even then, the plutonium was split up into 18 heat units each.

Honest questions: Would there actually be any significant impact, since Jupiter is a gas giant? That also factors against this, I think. On the other hand, the pressure of Jupiter's atmosphere could be the trigger. How much pressure would it take to compress 433g of Pu-238 to critical mass? I know the shape affects critical mass as well, but only know that the heat units had cylindrical masses rather than spherical, but don't know the measurements. Depending on whether the RTGs maintain minimal structural integrity to this point might also be a factor, as having other plutonium masses nearby would help the plutonium reach critical mass.

NSA Disclaimer: Not trying to create a bomb here, the environment of Jupiter would probably be more difficult to create on Earth than a conventional nuclear bomb.

EDIT: Ninja'ed and derailed. That's what I get for researching a post like this while I compose it.

On the other hand, if the bomb was designed to be TRIGGERED once the incredible heat and pressure crossed some threshold

Actually, the temperature levels we're talking about here would probably work against you. There's an optimal temperature point, given the material and pressure, past which thermal expansion causes the material in question to expand enough to actually increase the amount of material you need to achieve critical mass.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Eric S

[TheSaint]

No, that can't happen. Ever. In order to initiate a nuclear detonation, you need impressive calculations and explosive lens. Basically, a sudden and highly correct, intensive impulse to compress a subcritical object into prompt-critical.

If blasting a piece of fissionable material was enough to make a mushroom cloud, this civilization would cease to exist long ago because anyone with access to fissionable uranium could do it.

Why do you think there was Manhattan project with all those big name scientists working their equations like mad, if all you had to do was to strap a block of uranium to a bomb and press the button?

Also remember that RTGs contain plutonium-238, which cannot undergo nuclear fission. Plutonium-239 is the isotope used in nuclear weapons. RTGs don't generate electricity via fission, they use the decay heat of the plutonium to generate electric current in thermocouples.

this thread has got me thinking, if we set off a big enough fusion bomb deep enough into jupiter, would that create a chain reaction that blows the entire atmosphere up into one huge fusion explosion?

Nope. The reason Jupiter isn't undergoing fusion is because it doesn't have enough mass to compress the core enough to produce fusion. If you set off a nuclear weapon there, when it is done there still will not be enough pressure in the core to support fusion, so it will remain unchanged.

Wow, looks like I got in on the tail end of this physics mugging.

[Guest Brody_Peffley]

No, that can't happen. Ever. In order to initiate a nuclear detonation, you need impressive calculations and explosive lens. Basically, a sudden and highly correct, intensive impulse to compress a subcritical object into prompt-critical.

If blasting a piece of fissionable material was enough to make a mushroom cloud, this civilization would cease to exist long ago because anyone with access to fissionable uranium could do it.

Why do you think there was Manhattan project with all those big name scientists working their equations like mad, if all you had to do was to strap a block of uranium to a bomb and press the button?

Uhm sir, Plutonium is what is used in bombs, Chemical explosives surround it and when it sets off, it creats pressure which than plutonium releases alot of energy. Oops sorry. Was thinking of plutonium 239.

But USA did have plans of blowing nuclear bombs up on the moon in the cold war. But speaking a rocket could create gigantic explosion almost like MOAB which they thought was a nuclear weapon. But it wasn't. So either way it could create a large firework for the kerbals that work at the space center

Edited August 27, 2013 by Brody_Peffley

[leax256]

getting back on track, the orgional idea seems awesome, however it would be pointless until the features described are actually added.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Nope. The reason Jupiter isn't undergoing fusion is because it doesn't have enough mass to compress the core enough to produce fusion. If you set off a nuclear weapon there, when it is done there still will not be enough pressure in the core to support fusion, so it will remain unchanged.

Wow, looks like I got in on the tail end of this physics mugging.

Surround Jupiter with enough nukes to manifest Kessler syndrome, and trigger them all at once?

[leax256]

Nope. The reason Jupiter isn't undergoing fusion is because it doesn't have enough mass to compress the core enough to produce fusion. If you set off a nuclear weapon there, when it is done there still will not be enough pressure in the core to support fusion, so it will remain unchanged.

then explain fusion on earth in this(http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/47830-Fusion-of-Jupiter?p=619738#post619738) thread to stay on topic

since to my knowledge pressure is part of the problem

[razark]

If I remember correctly, most of NASA's rockets could self destruct if they came too close to a city or lives were in danger.

Range safety would step in if the flight was going off course. They didn't wait for it to get close to hitting anything. Even the shuttle had range safety devices, which destroyed the SRBs (and would have destroyed the ET) after Challenger.

Although this could be added as a simple abort button that disintegrates the entire ship, I think having actual explosives that must be attached to ship would be better.

How about something that you can tie into the abort action group? Have a trigger with a half-second delay, then push the button, get the crew clear, and blow the rest of the stack.

If you're flying a rocket full of fuel, disintegrating it into a rain of hellfire over a city isn't the best option.

That's why KSC (the one in game, and the one in Florida) are built on the east coast. (And hopefully the fuel would have burned out before it reached the surface. There would be a large quantity of oxidizer in the area, so rapid combustion is pretty much ensured, and the rocket would be destroyed before it got very far off course.)

[lajoswinkler]

Also remember that RTGs contain plutonium-238, which cannot undergo nuclear fission. Plutonium-239 is the isotope used in nuclear weapons. RTGs don't generate electricity via fission, they use the decay heat of the plutonium to generate electric current in thermocouples.

Forgot about that. But it can undergo fission, but it can't sustain a chain reaction. Any isotope of Pu is under constant fission, but 239 is special.

I'd also like to add something for anyone interested. If you strap bombs around a lump of fissionable material and detonate them, you'll just disperse the material. It's a radiological disaster, a "dirty bomb". More effort will yield a "fizzle", a weak nuclear detonation.

Full yields require extensive modelling and theoretical work, as well as engineering.

[Person012345]

Uhm sir, Plutonium is what is used in bombs, Chemical explosives surround it and when it sets off, it creats pressure which than plutonium releases alot of energy. Oops sorry. Was thinking of plutonium 239.

But USA did have plans of blowing nuclear bombs up on the moon in the cold war. But speaking a rocket could create gigantic explosion almost like MOAB which they thought was a nuclear weapon. But it wasn't. So either way it could create a large firework for the kerbals that work at the space center

Yes, you can surround just-subcritical plutonium with explosives, but as mentioned the plutonium (which as has been established isn't the same kind) isn't all kept in the same place. It isn't the pressure that "releases a lot of energy", the pressure causes the plutonium to go supercritical. As radioactive materials decay, they release particles that bump into other plutonium particles causing them to decay and then they send out particles and so on. It's a chain reaction and it produces huge amounts of energy. But if the plutonium isn't at critical mass then it's not densely packed enough to cause a runaway chain reaction and nuclear explosion. Of course, getting it precisely right requires engineering, and as you've been told simply putting some dynamite next to some uranium isn't going to do anything apart from get radioactive mess everywhere.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Person012345

[chri]

"...Here in America, we're really good at blowing stuff up and less good at knowing where the pieces land"

-Neil deGrasse Tyson

[jwenting]

I like this idea. But having rtg will have a bigger explosions than with none since it uses radioactive material

uh, no.

You're falling for the completely idiotic fallacy that "radioactive material == nuclear bomb".

[Outlander4]

Just add sepratrons angled to direct pieces of rocket inwards, and tie them to the action group together with decoupling everything. It works miracles, I tell you!

[DChurchill]

Without a sub-critical mass and uniform compression of that mass, any fissionable material in the RTG is a boat anchor. Just because it makes a Geiger counter go click, doesn't mean it's a viable explosive. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.