What does a megaton look like?

[Calilasseia]

I thought it would be instructive to provide a visualisation for the measures used in nuclear yields, which are measured in terms of TNT equivalent. TNT (trinitrotoluene) has a density of 1,654 Kg m3, and as a consequence, 1,000 Kg (1 metric ton) of TNT occupies a volume of 0.604 m3. Therefore 1 kiloton of TNT occupies 604 m3 of space. For those familiar with TEUs , or 20 foot equivalent containers used in shipping, a standard European 2.25 TEU container has a volume of 86.6 m3, so 1 kiloton of TNT would occupy 7 of these containers. You're looking at seven of these:



Since 1 megaton equals 1 million tons of TNT equivalent, 1 million tons of TNT would occupy 7,000 of those containers above. A ship capable of carrying those 7,000 containers would be around 16,000 TEU (more precisely, 15,750 TEU): the current largest ship in the Maersk fleet, the Emma Maersk, would be a little short on capacity with respect to carrying those containers - here's an image of the ship, which is 1,302 feet long, has a beam of 184 feet, and a draught of nearly 53 feet:



The sister ship Ebba Maersk set a transporation record of 15,011 TEU on one voyage, but this is still a little short of the 16,000 TEU requirement. The proposed sucessor to the Emma Maersk and her sister ships, the Triple E Class (ships yet to be named, as they're still on the drawing board), are rated at 18,000 TEU, and would be able to carry the 7,000 containers described above. Basically, when stacked and loaded upon one of the forthcoming Triple E Class ships, 1 megaton of TNT in 2.25 TEU containers would occupy space equivalent to a warehouse a quarter of a mile long by 200 feet wide by 60 feet high.

Back in 1962, the US military packed a warhead with 1.2 megatons yield (the W56 warhead for the Minuteman ICBMs, decommisioned in 1993) into a space equivalent to 3 PC server cases. Quite a bit smaller than the aforementioned ships.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

If that much TNT explodes under you then it would probably be wise to be wearing ear defenders, I'd say.

[Calilasseia]

If you're sitting on top of it when it happens, ear defenders will be the least of your worries.

[Cormac]

If you're sitting on top of it when it happens, ear defenders will be the least of your worries.

Yes, you'd probably be most concerned about the potential nausaeating effects of weightlessness, how long it will be before the ISS comes around, and, of course, breathing...

[cronus]

It always looks nicer on Youtube than in real life.

[JimC]

I thought it would be instructive to provide a visualisation for the measures used in nuclear yields, which are measured in terms of TNT equivalent. TNT (trinitrotoluene) has a density of 1,654 Kg m3, and as a consequence, 1,000 Kg (1 metric ton) of TNT occupies a volume of 0.604 m3. Therefore 1 kiloton of TNT occupies 604 m3 of space. For those familiar with TEUs , or 20 foot equivalent containers used in shipping, a standard European 2.25 TEU container has a volume of 86.6 m3, so 1 kiloton of TNT would occupy 7 of these containers. You're looking at seven of these:

Since 1 megaton equals 1 million tons of TNT equivalent, 1 million tons of TNT would occupy 7,000 of those containers above. A ship capable of carrying those 7,000 containers would be around 16,000 TEU (more precisely, 15,750 TEU): the current largest ship in the Maersk fleet, the Emma Maersk, would be a little short on capacity with respect to carrying those containers - here's an image of the ship, which is 1,302 feet long, has a beam of 184 feet, and a draught of nearly 53 feet:

The sister ship Ebba Maersk set a transporation record of 15,011 TEU on one voyage, but this is still a little short of the 16,000 TEU requirement. The proposed sucessor to the Emma Maersk and her sister ships, the Triple E Class (ships yet to be named, as they're still on the drawing board), are rated at 18,000 TEU, and would be able to carry the 7,000 containers described above. Basically, when stacked and loaded upon one of the forthcoming Triple E Class ships, 1 megaton of TNT in 2.25 TEU containers would occupy space equivalent to a warehouse a quarter of a mile long by 200 feet wide by 60 feet high.

Back in 1962, the US military packed a warhead with 1.2 megatons yield (the W56 warhead for the Minuteman ICBMs, decommisioned in 1993) into a space equivalent to 3 PC server cases. Quite a bit smaller than the aforementioned ships.

They are types of calculations that I like my physics students to do - they need to be both fluent in those sort of calculations, and get useful mental pictures to put things in perspective...

[Clinton Huxley]

If you're sitting on top of it when it happens, ear defenders will be the least of your worries.

Yes, you'd probably be most concerned about the potential nausaeating effects of weightlessness, how long it will be before the ISS comes around, and, of course, breathing...

Nevertheless, as a gentleman, one would retain one's composure.

[Rum]

Good cure for constipation!

..actually it kind of puts the power of what we could do to ourselves in perspective.

[Clinton Huxley]

And that's one megaton. The Roosians tested the "Tsar" bomb, 57 megatons. 57 of those container ships stuffed with TNT.

[JimC]

Of course, when it reaches over a certain (large) volume, TNT will not all explode at once, I would imagine...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To show you how little they knew about the possible blast effects of the first atomic bomb, here's a shot of the 100 tons of TNT they set off for "calibration" purposes.

[klr]

If you're sitting on top of it when it happens, ear defenders will be the least of your worries.

Reminds me of that line from The Simpsons where Cecil Terwilliger (Sideshow Bob's brother, and played - of course - by David Hyde Pierce) - is about to blow up a dam, and Bob and Bart with it:

"And now to kill you. There may be a slight ringing in your ears. Fortunately, you'll be nowhere near them."

[MiM]

And by using a more efficient explosive you could size those down by about a factor of 3 (volume), so the DPRK 10kT test would compare to a 12m cube of high explosives.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And by using a more efficient explosive you could size those down by about a factor of 3 (volume), so the DPRK 10kT test would compare to a 12m cube of high explosives.

There's a new one in the last few weeks that could do better than that. Forgot the damn name, of course.

[Calilasseia]

And by using a more efficient explosive you could size those down by about a factor of 3 (volume), so the DPRK 10kT test would compare to a 12m cube of high explosives.

Check: since 10 Kt would equal 70 of those containers, using an explosive that reduces the volume by a factor of 3 still leaves you with 24 of those containers needed to house the more powerful explosive, which equals 2,078 m3. The cube root of this is approximately 12.76. So a cube of explosives 12.76 m each side, assuming that the explosives in question were 3 times more powerful than TNT, would produce a blast of around 10 Kt if it all detonated simultaneously.