I've always been suspicious of the "nuke" option here. Someone with a physics background please help me out. In order to break up a large asteroid, the reaction obviously needs to directly interact with the asteroid's mass. Is the relative vacuum of space a problem here, in terms of efficiency?

In other words, we laymen think of nuclear explosions as massive, but isn't our judgment of them skewed by the fact that they're happening within or below our atmosphere? I just don't know how much the reactions "feed" off of neighboring matter (air, water, earth). (That whole "chain reaction" fear at White Sands)

Or is their intensity actually defined only by the effect of nuclear material on the surrounding matter?

Since they've been making shape-charged warheads for decades, are they actually attenuated by the neighboring mass, compared to space? That seems likely, so how do you blow the damned asteroid up?

Ha ha!

My brother (who I am I certain has tin foil hats) and is a major conspiracy theorist, texts me at work one day.

I bust out laughing because he wants me to find the number to Nasa for him.

I ask why and he proceeds to tell me he has figured out how to divert an asteriod hit from striking the earth. (Some kind of huge panel ..I don't know)

I bust out laughing again and everyone knows my brother has texted me and are on the edge of their seats to hear the latest.

My brother is TOTALLY serious.

I give him the number and he had to leave a message, apparently.

I asked a few wks ago if he heard back and he said "nope, but I am sure they are working on it!!"

Ha ha. I just love him.