Much ink has been spilled over how to get sulphur into the stratosphere. In
conversation with a prominent scientist today, I was prompted to do a bit
more research on possible uses of geoengineering bombs.

I've previously considered using a 2 stage thermobaric bomb for
geoengineering. (Subject overview here
https://euro-sd.com/2022/11/articles/26805/thermobarics-developments-and-deployments/
.) The first stage would disperse then deflagrate sulphur into the air,
forming a hot cloud of SO2. Instantly after, a second charge would disperse
graphene into the oxygen-depleted cloud. This would provide convective lift
- firstly from the initial thermobaric bomb, then from solar heating on the
graphene. This idea has been explored in a paper that was covered by
Reviewer 2 https://spotify.link/QGotJhM8HDb - albeit in an alternative, non
explosive implementation.

However, there's been much critical comment on the use of black carbon as
either a lifting or shading material, so I didn't pursue this further.

Today, during this twitter discussion, it occurred to me to revisit the
idea. What if high altitude or high power geoengineering bombs were used?

The US MOAB is the largest NATO conventional munitions - 10t, roughly
equivalent to a WWII grand slam. With a plume height of 10kft - approx 3km
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/article_1617jsp/ , it can add significant
vertical range to any sulfur insertion efforts. However, its design isn't
readily modifiable, as it uses TNT explosive. However, the BLU-82
daisycutter is a smaller, but still very large conventional bomb. Unlike
the MOAB, it uses a slurry of fuel/oxidiser. There's been quite a bit of
work on these explosive composites
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.201706293

How could such an idea be implemented? The BLU-82 is dropped by a tactical
cargo aircraft C-130 class, which has a pretty low service ceiling of
7-10km, depending on payload.
The KC-135 could theoretical carry 5 BLU-82 in its (37t) payload at 50kft
(~15km) - although it's not a bomber, and the crew would presumably have to
wear space suits if the bombs were carried internally in a cargo conversion.

By uprating the mass of the BLU-82 (it's basically just a barrel bomb), or
detonating several in close proximity - such as on a daisychain - the
mushroom cloud could presumably exceed that of the MOAB - perhaps adding
around 5km altitude to the detonation height - likely just under 15k.

There are obvious practical issues with this approach, but these may be
surmountable
1) gravity bombs will lose altitude before aircraft septation distance is
achieved. Large parachutes add weight, cost and complexity, and work less
well at altitude.
2) glide bomb conversions can maintain altitude better, but may require tow
lines to ensure they're adequately separated at point of detonation. I know
of no mid-air towed deployment from a cargo plane ramp. Glide bombs are
also costly - requiring wings, and possibly active control surfaces.
3) to get an adequate mushroom cloud, multiple bombs should be
simultaneously detonated within perhaps r=30m sphere. Getting 3-5 bombs to
overlap such a sphere would be achievable with a daisychain - but any more
would require coordination between multiple aircraft. Formation flying
would further increase the risk to deploying aircraft, from both blast and
collision.

An alternative approach would be to do a ground burst. This dispenses with
the aircraft entirely, but needs a *very* much larger plume. Accordingly,
you'd likely want to load an entire year's supply of Sulphur and liquid
Oxygen into a few million 1000l IBC containers and pop the lot in one go.
This should allow you to get the mushroom cloud right up into the
stratosphere from the ground, provided you start at a reasonable elevation
(Atlas, Andes, etc.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud#/media/File%3ANukecloud.png
data extracted from https://www.jstor.org/stable/443658
Fortunately, 30°N/S is both a sensible latitude for geoengineering and the
location of lots of deserts, where you can do this sort of thing without
substantial collateral damage.

In summary, this is probably quite daft, but not so daft that it can be
immediately dismissed.

It would be good to hear from list members on this idea.

Andrew

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04_%2B%2Bh4Unty09X6LUaYOoSohsm5ssi96pVehYQ1ZZpkMw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to