From: The Low Willow (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 14 1997 - 12:26:43 MST
On Jun 5, 9:53am, Michael Lorrey wrote:
} I found a ref ona NASA page stating that one Megaton was 4.2 x 10^22
} ergs.
Equals 10^15 calories equals 10^6*one gigacalorie equals James number.
} > only has an energy yield of 6*10^10 Joules.
} Yes it is quite small, and could easily be formed into the same
} stealthed shapes that Mark is puportin for nukes.
Since no one from the Earth crowd has even suggested an active defense
of Earth, this is a bit beside the point.
} 4.2 x 10^22 ergs per Megaton, I calculated 15 tons of TNT equiv. for the
} 1 ton rock, so while I was seriously wrong in my own estimate, Mark was
} under by almost three times. I don't know why that number stuck in my
3 times versus 3 orders of magnitude. Poor Mark. What was your point
in saying that? You're the one James cited for confusing force and
energy units.
} A 10 MT device will only have a damage area of between 4-8 times larger
} than a 300 KT device, which is why the powers have gotten away from
} using big nukes, as they are not as cost effective as using the same
} amount of material in four or more devices.
Which makes your defense problem much harder, as you now get to try to
detect and shoot down many more and smaller missiles. 30 times more
missiles, using the sizes just above. Admittedly Earth has to have that
many more rockets delivering the warheads, but I think it just might
manage that for the sake of defense.
} an earth based target. While I do not know how to calculate the actual
} or estimated equivalence, I think that this is a significant factor to
} consider.
So is the 15 ton rock impact.
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
Antisocial arrogance is only for those of us who deserve it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:00 MST