Re: Nuclear decay post-detonation

From: Paul Draper (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/29/04 

Date: 29 Sep 2004 09:14:35 -0700

abdul.ahad@ntlworld.com (AA Institute) wrote in message news:<adbf5bc1.0409290050.46e74749@posting.google.com>...
> "Dave" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<PJydnULtVNJMBcTcRVn-iA@crocker.com>...
> > that was the idea behind the neutron bomb. kill people but not contaminate
> > the area.
> >
> A neutron bomb wont work for the *space* applications I have in
> mind...
>
> I'd like to hollow out an asteroid by detonating nuclear missiles into
> it to carve out some living space inside it, as depicted here:
>
> http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/restricted/interstellar-propulsion.html
>
> I don't want that excavation to become radioactive, as I'd like to
> turn it into a living habitat for people, plants and animals
> functioning as a miniature biosphere.
> Is there another kind of heavy duty blast mechanism that could be used
> instead of outright *nuclear*?

Ah, and in that case I have to disillusion you some more. A blast does
not make matter disappear. It may heat it to a gas and send it in all
directions at enormous speeds, but the matter is still there -- all
over the countryside in fact.

So if you set off a bomb inside a small hole to make a bigger hole,
you have to ask, "Where is all this STUFF going to go?" Unless you
have a good way to channel the explosive debris out to the outside,
chances are you are only going to split the rock, or at the very least
open a big channel from the outside to the inside.

To get a feel for what's involved, look up the engineering
requirements for underground mine blasting and where all that "stuff"
goes.

You stand a better chance of landing on the rock and digging, as in a
mine.

PD