suppose the atomic bomb explode on the surface of moon, will the radiation heigher than on the earth? what will be the impact in the moon's upper sky? the phusion process will start smoothly on moon in that bomb ?
and if the cloud mounting on the moon, so is there a great possibility in change of the day temperature on the moon ? how much the toxic particles will be rest on the surface, and how much time it will take to rest on the surface of the moon?




sunil

You good point make on moon. who bomb moon, bin laden? maybe we go arm to moon and protect?

Why would Bin Laden bomb the moon? All his enemies are right here on Earth.

__________________
I met this wonderful girl at Macy's. She was buying clothes and I was putting Slinkies on the escalator.
-Steven Wright



My Website: The Black Cat's Web Page

Sunil, I can't see why anyone would want to set off a nuclear explosion on the Moon - unless it's for a significant (but localised) landscape redevelopment, and there are better ways to address that ...

With a gravity about 1/6 that of Earth, and no atmosphere to speak of, yes the material (radioactive and target) should go higher and spread further ... how long it stays above the surface (and how much, if any, is lost to space) would be "an exercise for the student" and would have to include the 'yield' of the device used, and its proximity to the surface on detonation ...

__________________

One interesting aspect of an atomic blast on the Moon would be that the classic 'mushroom cloud' wouldn't form. This cloud is basically a convection phenomenon, formed when the atmosphere of the Earth is locally heated into an incandescent ball of gas, which has low density and rises, while the air surrounding this fireball is also heated and rises into a column, dragging dust up into the air surrounding the fireball (this dust becomes irradiated and is converted into radioactive 'fallout' dust, much of which would be carried away into the upper atmosphere and transported various distances).

None of this would happen on the Moon; there would be a bright flash, and a crater would form, depending on the height if the explosion; a 'splash' of dust and evaporated rock would be expelled outwards from the crater region, and the mass of the bomb itself would be converted into a very hot (but rapidly dissipating) plasma which would expand in a rough sphere in all directions above the crater and its splash. Yes, the splash of dust and pulverised rock would become irradiated, but this fallout dust would fall rapidly back to the Moon in a starlike pattern of ejecta, and very little would be carried away by the Moon's very thin atmosphere.
That atmosphere would suddenly become somewhat thicker around any such detonation for a short period, because of vaporised material from the Moon's crust and the bomb itself - but would still be a pretty high grade vacuum. You might get an aurora on the Moon for a brief period.

Oh yes- the operation of the bomb itself, the 'phusion' as you put it, would be unaffected. It would work fine.

(edit- post 2k!)

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

very nice reply eburacum, cran thanks, anyway i was just building the castle that what impact will be made in such course of action on moon. will that plasma reflect sun rays which were coming on the moon's surface by and large?
what impact will be fall on hillium on the moon since it is abundant thereon?

Congrats on 2000 posts, eburacum45!

For that, Sunil, I will defer to our resident 'rocket scientists' and 'atom-smashers' ...
it's a bit much for simple rockhound-in-training like me

but I think the answer will still depend on the size and placement of your theoretical nuclear device ... for instance, you have at least 3 placement options: 1. above the surface or 'airborne'; 2. on the surface; 3. below the surface - each produce different impact patterns ... but that's about as far as I can go with it ...

__________________

IIRC, in the early days of the space age, both the USSR and USA did feasibility studies of taking a nuclear bomb to the moon. I don't think the rationale was anything beyond being spectacular.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Except it wouldn't be spectacular from here. Unless it is a very high yield weapon, it may not be visible to the naked eye, and if it is, only as a brief flash that would be missed if you weren't looking at just the right time. At that distance, even a nuke is a speck.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

The following website has an article about early plans for lunar atomic explosions, called "Nuke The Moon!"
http://utenti.lycos.it/paoloulivi/nuke.html

oh! thanks kiwi, for the link here. congrats eburacum for the 2000+ postings in the forum.

can we say: the post explosion will open the moon's secrets to know about more things about moon ?

In the same way as throwing a probe into a comet? I guess ... but it would help if seismometers were placed in different locations on the moon's surface to monitor the shockwaves ... in which case the best tests would be subsurface ...

__________________

means there is a least possibility to receive the non conventional energy through such sort of ipisode, cran.

Yes, that's right ... it would still be pretty messy right at the target zone, though.

__________________

cran, then it would also be difficult in accumulation of the energy sources through the outer space "for earth" utilisation.


sunil

Yes, I think so, Sunil. It certainly would be a challenge to make it viable - it would likely cost more in energy expenditure to obtain the energy source, unless it was already coming here (eg, solar energy).
The easiest body to exploit for resources (other than the Earth) seems to be the Moon - Robert Heinlein wrote a story about mining the moon and it included a system of 'controlled dropping' of the material into the Earth's gravity well; when the lunar colonists decided to rebel, they used the same system, but without the controls to 'throw rocks' at the Earth - the described impact on the surface was similar to a Arizona-style meteor strike, on par with a modern thermonuclear device.

__________________

Here's, The REAL Question:

Could It Be Used, Millitarily?

Like, Let's Say, a Huge Enemy Force, Is Coming Up, Over Yon Crater Rim; Would a Large Enough, Nuclear Device, Be Of Any Use?

If So, What, Would It Take, To Achieve, At Least, a Hiroshima Sized, Event?

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

The moon is not a war zone.
With very little atmosphear, there could be no fire storm. No O2. No fire. No wind. Local blast effect only. Then radio active dirt. Why would you want to do this on the moon?
Please don't.

For ZaphodBeeblebrox ...

How big is the enemy force? (ie, would it fit within the blast radius?)
Is it automated? (ie, can you simply target the central control?)
How well shielded? (ie, will the EMP do more than the blast?)

PS, Sorry Astromark, I'm not really ignoring you (you are right, of course) - just playing the game ...

__________________

I will play also. . . Dont go to war on the moon, There's no oil there.
Its baron, dry, and whats not covered with dust is dust. Let them have it.
Put the wagons in a circle, and shoot them all. Leave it to them, we dont want it.