To get maximum velocity, the flare of the nozzle you want to expand gas out of changes with external pressure.
that's the only thing about action/reaction that changes.
toss stuff one way, go the other. Basics of rockets. And falling rocks.
I agree, in orbit, an a-bomb going off 10 miles away should be silent, I don't think anyones put a mike in a can next to a nuke in vacuum. Wonder what it sounds like? The push from the vaporizing bomb would be fairly darn small at any distance. A nuke's primary effect in vacuum is photons. Lots and lots. And lots.
Atmo is different. Reaction/effect will be different than on earth.
And directly to the point... Your statement would only matter if NASA was proposing pushing an asteroid around inside of the atmosphere. This is exactly the kind of misstating of the theory that SA engages in frequently, at least on matters of global warming. I can only assume from what you have presented, they do the same thing on other subjects too. Very sad.
One recently touted "move the asteroid" scheme involves putting a spaceship near an asteroid and having the gravitational pull of the spaceship pull the asteroid.
Unless we build much larger spacecraft that the Shuttle, or Mir, I'm at a loss to see how that would work unless we had a really really long time for the idea to work. If you can rendezvous with the asteroid, sticking a rocket of some kind (ion, vaporized rock, co2 fire extinguisher...) on the rock seems like a far faster way to move it. Yes, a BB has a gravity pull on a Stadium, but that's a bit silly.
I could, of course, be wrong.
Think Iamachangel has how rockets work figured out yet?
Also, ( back the original thread ) nukes are useful for creating Aurora type plasma in orbit. Have to have quite a budget for that rock concert, or have need to blind a satellite, but it does do that.
I was in a Pershing unit in the Army and I can only tell you two things I know for certain. 1 YOU WILL ALL NEVER NO EXEPT THE 500 SOLDIERS I WAS ON CASS AND PAD WITH HOW •••••• CLOSE YOU ALL CAME!!!!!!!!2 MOST OF YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW BAD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN. That being said I am glad we had them cause they really did I don't care if you believe me or not SAVE THE WORLD like I said only myself and roughly 500 other guys in Pershing on the Waldhiede redleg know for sure how close it really was. I am sure their are many other units "NUKE" that is who know as well but I don't know them all I know is Ronald Reagen gave the go ahead and somehow someway cooler heads prevailed but the pins were pulled and the batteries were armed to the teeth the godammed push of a button was all that was needed I shyt you not.
Yea, one thing the book points out is a LOT of the stuff these guys at General Atomic developed in the 1950's (almost 60 years ago) is STILL highly classified. One of the things the book speculates they developed is hand-grenade sized nukes, which would have been very handy for powering an Orion.
Lived at the end of the runway at Offutt Field. I even found a DVD with "Duck and Cover" the cartoon training film for kids I grew up with. Granddad worked on the Sprint ABM. B-47's, 52's, 58's, cracked all the plaster in our rental.
After the hot dog stand at the Pentagon, that was the #2 target in the country until they gave Cheyenne Mountain a deep hole full of control rooms and the Stargate.
Nuclear war is not good. Doesn't mean the device isn't a useful tool. It would be wise to limit these things to responsible adults. Proliferation bad.
I spent most of my life laughing at the idea that an explosion with a fireball 10 miles across was stopped by a chipboard desk.
Considering that one purpose of "Duck and Cover" was to keep the children from panicking, it's not bad.
The advice in the film is good, if you are a certain distance from the boom. Remember, this was the era of the A-bomb. 10-100 kilotons of TNT. The radius from ground zero that was survivable was pretty small compared to the multi-megaton city destroying H-bombs of the 50's. Still, if you are far enough away that the flash doesn't set you on fire, not standing in front of the window about to become razor sharp supersonic splinters is good advice.
Many times I have been told, "if it comes to nuclear war, I don't want to live". My response is, "ok, can I have your stuff?"
You know its our fault, we separated them from their families and heritage when we supported the South Koreans. And of course in our Capitalist, Imperialistic expansion we imprisioned the South, and shackled them with your bases and impressioned them with the wall of the DMZ. Maybe he will give them Soeul back.
Problem with the Korean War, is that the North has benefactors. Any attempt to flatten N. Korea and end the war would have the Chinese cut loose, and they're almost ready to go Imperialist...if only to "reclaim" their "lost territories". ( various islands, mostly ) Trouble is they have some historical claim to a bunch of stuff....depending on which century you pick and choose "territory". Japan, for instance.
And the Chinese would call in all their markers to screw us. Iran, the Russians, ( that they just had a happy meet with to announce using mutually agreed on currency instead of the dollar.) and a bunch of other semi-client states. ( after all, they own everything. We gave them the money )
So ( to return to topic ) while a pre-emtive strike of some sort on N. Korea to stop their aggression on Seoul, and facilitate regime change would be the tactically smart thing to do, it's not practically possible...
It's also probable that the only plan that would actually defeat the North without massive civilian deaths, would involve small nukes. Not gonna happen.
What my guess is.. is that we will bribe them to pretend to behave again...since that's the pattern of response he's/we've been conditioned to. This can't go one forever, but it's a winning strategy for Kim, so far. It's really Danegeld. ( see below. ) ( Just assume political rant here blaming one party mostly for this situation....and ignore )
Actually the probable outcome of an invasion of the South is that nukes would be used, possibly by both sides and the loss of life would be unholy.
The Dane-Geld Rudyard Kipling
A.D. 980-1016
IT is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation To call upon a neighbour and to say:-- "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight, Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld, And the people who ask it explain That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld And then you'll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation, To puff and look important and to say:-- "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you. We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld; But we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say:--
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld, Nor matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!"
