Speaker
Description
Planetary defense mitigation attempts require significant advanced mission planning and simulation. The modeling work is conducted using hydrodynamics codes and equation of state data (Barbee et al., 2018). The results of these pre-launch simulations are used in mission planning to predict targeting and timing requirements and to quantify the energy and delivery mechanism required to deflect or disrupt the threat object. The hypothetical threat object 2024 PDC has a moderate size and warning time relative to current response capabilities. Non-nuclear means would likely be the preferred response to such a threat. Even in such cases, nuclear mitigation is a potential last-resort response if other methods fail. Because it is seen as a back-up option for this scenario, we explore how nuclear mitigation might work in the context of failed previous non-nuclear mitigation attempts, including an exploration of uncertainties in the planning and simulation of such a mission. Initial scaling estimates based on the size of craters produced in above ground nuclear tests (Glasstone and Dolan, pp. 253-257) suggest that it may be possible to disrupt a threat object similar to those described in exercise epoch 1. We will present the results of higher fidelity physics simulations like the one shown in Fig. 1 below at the meeting which will include material properties specific to the epoch 2 property range for the hypothetical threat object and x-ray transport from energy sources in vacuo. These simulations use the Cassio radiative transport hydrocode described and validated for use with porous silicates in Falk (2014). We will explore the effects of the epoch 2 material property variance on our predictions, and lead times required for safe mitigation.
Fig. 1: A temperature plot [eV] from a physics simulation of a 10 kt burst 83 m above a 200 m bi-lobate porous silicate target that included hydrodynamics, x-ray transport, heat transport, and material strength.