Pun intended, but still a serious question.

Would a neutron matter? (Pun also intended, but also serious)

  • JASN_DE@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yes. For the effects, look up pictures of the damage that space debris has on spacecrafts.

  • TomMasz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is why Star Trek’s Enterprise has that forward-facing deflector dish. It wouldn’t last very long without something to prevent such collisions.

  • cynar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s actually a legit concern with any (hypothetical) interstellar mission. Even hydrogen atoms will hit with significant force. Dust hits like nukes, and an asteroid is just game over.

    The maxim used in a lot of sci-fi is an ablative armour plate. Often in the form of ice. Interstellar ships would likely aldo be needle like, to minimise their cross section. We could also use electric and/or magnetic fields to move smaller particles out of the way.

    As for densities, I believe it’s a couple of hydrogen ions per m^3 . Dust is rarer, but still present. It’s only bigger rocks that are rare enough to just hope to avoid.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        21 hours ago

        The ISS has been pinholed by debris a few times. Likely paint. The shuttle was damaged by foam breaking off, amongst other events.

        By comparison orbital velocity is around 7km/s, while a bullet is around 0.367km/s. Any mismatch will push debris up to bullet speeds easily.

        As for relativistic speeds. C is 300,000km/s assuming you get up to 1/3C (barely relativistic) you are moving at 100,000km/s or 14,000x faster than the ISS moves, or 39000x faster than a bullet. A 10g rock would hit with 10kilotons of energy. About 2/3 the energy of the first atom. bombs.

  • bad_news
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    There’s an xkcd about this, it would basically become a nuke near the speed of light

    • Xaphanos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      By my back-of-the -envelope math it is 4,500,000,000 joules. The Hiroshima bomb is listed at approximately 10,000,000,000,000 joules. I bet xkcd is far more accurate, though.

      • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        How did you calculate that? The question didn’t even mention a specific speed, just “near the speed of light”.

        The kinetic energy for a grain of sand near the speed of light is somewhere between “quite a lot” and “literally infinity” (which is, in a sense, the reason you can’t actually reach light speed without a way to supply infinite energy).

        • Xaphanos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 day ago

          Ke=1/2 M V^2 Not relativistic. So wildly low. But certainly a low bound. My point being that nuclear bomb grade energy is certainly in the ballpark.