Let's say, for example, that the entire asteroid was made of olivine. It's a hard material, but not a very dense one, with brittle, conchoidal fracture.Master of Ossus wrote:Explain to me how, if the asteroid really was made up of such brittle material, Voyager did so little damage to it.
Now, compare this to iron. Iron is a softer material, much higher density, with a jagged, torn fracture.
Now, let's say you fire a bullet at a wall made of olivine. You'll probably end up with a hunk of broken fragments flying away, and might even get cracks running from the point of impact. Do the same to an iron wall, and if the bullet penetrates more than a dent's worth, you'll get torn metal.
Detonate a thermonuclear weapon next to that wall, and the olivine wall will probably shatter. The more resilient iron wall may either tear wide open, or just sit there and melt, et cetera, depending on various factors.
Make sense?
This would assume, of course, that the entire asteroid was olivine, and not nickel-iron with a couple of oddball chunks of olivine. Given the fact that it fragmented in the way it did without vaporizing as expected, that isn't a bad hypothesis. But, then, the Nisu astrophysicist dude mentioned in his transmission that the asteroids were composed of artificial materials . . . whether he was simply finding evidence of the triatium alloy or whether the majority of the asteroid was literally artificial is not clear.
Well, a 100m chunk and a smaller, perhaps 50 meter chunk flew toward the planet. Another chunk of about 40 meters flew off to the left. There was also a bunch of other crap flying around, but it's too small (and the vidcap I saw the ep with is too low-res) for me to get much more out of it. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that an extra 50m asteroid's worth of material made it out of the torpedo blast.We KNOW that Voyager did not destroy the asteroid. It did not even come close.
If all that is correct, then it means 688,410 m^3 of debris was left over by the torpedo blast. For an asteroid that started out at 13,500,000 m^3, that ain't half bad.
A hard, brittle asteroid is more likely to fragment than a soft, pliable one.Darkling, DarkStar's site does not explain how the asteroid could have been so brittle, or how a rock that brittle could have taken so little damage from the torpedo. His premise is flawed.