Comment: Am I the only one who thought ... (Score 1) 520
Am I the only one who thought of Project Valkyrie (not the World War II project, the interstellar one) as being a comparatively cheap and easy solution for deflecting or destroying meteors headed for Earth with little advance time?
With only a few modifications (most notably, removing the passenger compartment), a rocket-propelled antimatter delivery system with sufficient antimatter (say, 10 Kg, magnetically isolated) dragging a tungsten shield (20cm thick, say a 20ft diameter disk) a fair distance away (50 meters) would produce upon impact a matter-annihilating explosion of gamma radiation with a yield of approximately 400 megatons (depending on the annihilation percentage), with most of that force being diverted away from the Earth (the tungsten shield absorbing what heads for Earth due to tactical trajectory placement (alignment before impact with the shield being directly between Earth and the meteor creating an umbra).
Another side effect: that much ionizing gamma radiation would undoubtedly weaken the meteor's base components on a molecular scale, making the object much more susceptible to break-up and frictional heat destruction if any of it hit the atmosphere.
Having that much antimatter on hand may be an issue, since, according to the last news article I read about it, 10Kg would be about half of the antimatter currently available on Earth, but the parts already exist, and casting a tungsten disk that size is only a matter of cost, not time. The Newtonian backlash on the tungsten disk would propel it back towards the Earth, but I would rather have a 20ft diameter disk coming at the Earth instead of a house-sized chunk of iron and nickel, wouldn't you?
I don't really see a downside to the plan except lead time.
Any comments would be appreciated.
With only a few modifications (most notably, removing the passenger compartment), a rocket-propelled antimatter delivery system with sufficient antimatter (say, 10 Kg, magnetically isolated) dragging a tungsten shield (20cm thick, say a 20ft diameter disk) a fair distance away (50 meters) would produce upon impact a matter-annihilating explosion of gamma radiation with a yield of approximately 400 megatons (depending on the annihilation percentage), with most of that force being diverted away from the Earth (the tungsten shield absorbing what heads for Earth due to tactical trajectory placement (alignment before impact with the shield being directly between Earth and the meteor creating an umbra).
Another side effect: that much ionizing gamma radiation would undoubtedly weaken the meteor's base components on a molecular scale, making the object much more susceptible to break-up and frictional heat destruction if any of it hit the atmosphere.
Having that much antimatter on hand may be an issue, since, according to the last news article I read about it, 10Kg would be about half of the antimatter currently available on Earth, but the parts already exist, and casting a tungsten disk that size is only a matter of cost, not time. The Newtonian backlash on the tungsten disk would propel it back towards the Earth, but I would rather have a 20ft diameter disk coming at the Earth instead of a house-sized chunk of iron and nickel, wouldn't you?
I don't really see a downside to the plan except lead time.
Any comments would be appreciated.