Comment: Re:A bad idea that "sounds good". (Score 1) 531
Causing actual damage with an asteroid seems to require far more mass (or at least significantly better aerodynamics than a space station).
I would suggest it is the density of the asteriod vs the empty shells of space stations that is the problem.
A 100 ton asteroid (which might be equivalent to the ISS, and the shuttle was a lot lighter on re-entry) is approximately a 5 x 5 x 5 meter cube if you assume a 5,000kg / cubic meter density. It's not that big (er, spread out may be a better term) that aerodynamic forces can act on it in a way that can easily break it up and slow it down.
100,000kg moving at an impact speed of, say, 2km/sec is 0.5 * 50,000 * 4,000,000 or 100,000,000,000 Joules. Converting that TNT gives you about 23 tons of TNT. Not a world-ender, but not something you want to have land nearby. And that's just a 100 ton rock. Economies of scale would suggest you go get the biggest rock you can find, and a 5 x 5 x 5 meter rock is pretty piddly......