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!)

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . 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.

that's the spirit!

Only one problem with letting them have it (the moon); it is the strategic 'high ground' ... as the Heinlein story pointed out, it is much much easier to 'throw rocks at the Earth' from the moon, than vice versa ... bottom line, we really don't want nukes on the moon ... not unless the mystyxilinians are on the warpath, and headed this way

__________________

Here's another good article, "US planned one big nuclear blast for mankind" by Antony Barnett, Public Affairs Editor, The Observer, Sunday May 14, 2000
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...220679,00.html

I've always remembered that when I first heard of this stuff many years ago, I thought, "Now hang on, don't you need an atmosphere to get a mushroom cloud?" It's rather amazing that Air Force big-wigs in the 50s didn't seem to know that.

Here are some headlines and articles from newspapers that I recorded. You'll possibly find the same at your local library around the same dates:

Manawatu Daily Times, Tuesday 5 November 1957, page 7
Red dye on the moon soon?
(Received 11:30pm) New York, November 4
...

Manawatu Daily Times, Wednesday 6 November 1957, page 7
Soviet scientific achievement has staggered the British
(Received 9pm) London, November 5
...

Manawatu Daily Times, Wednesday 6 November 1957, page 7
Russian moon rocket forecast
(Received 10:40pm) London, November 5
...

Manawatu Daily Times, Thursday 7 November 1957, page 6
New Zealand watch on moon for possible Soviet bomb
Nuclear blast could wreak more havoc than on earth
(P.A.) Wellington, November 6
...

Manawatu Daily Times, Friday 8 November 1957, page 9
World confidence in U.S. unshaken by satellites
Eisenhower now confronted with double problem
Washington, November 6
...

Manawatu Daily Times, Monday 18 November 1957, page 7
Quantum rocket would pass moon in seconds - Russians forecast reaching the speed of light
(Received 10pm) Moscow, November 16
...

Manawatu Daily Times, Wednesday 20 November 1957, page 7
Plans for recovery of future 'moons'
(Received 7pm) Moscow, November 18
# Russian scientists planned to recover future Sputniks by gliding them back to earth or reversing the launching process, the Soviet space scientist, Professor Petrov, said today.
# Professor Petrov, writing in the Leningrad newspaper Leningradskada Pravda, said Russian scientists planned to recover film from Sputniks on a special steel parachute. The recovery of Sputniks was particularly important, he said, because some of the data obtained by them could not be radioed back to earth.
# He did not refer to the recovery of animals or human beings. One method of recovery was to use the atmosphere as a brake before gliding the Sputnik down on retractable wings.

Manawatu Daily Times, Tuesday 3 December 1957, page 7
Satellite carrying hydrogen warhead - No reason why Reds cannot design weapon
(Received 8pm) Washington, December 1
...

Manawatu Daily Times, Wednesday 18 December 1957, page 7
Russian scientists disagree on question of moon conquest
(Received 10:50pm) Moscow, December 17
# Two Soviet rocket specialists in articles in Soviet journals, have disagreed on how long it might be before mankind reached out for the moon - and seized it. Their estimates of the time it would take to bring the moon within the reach of spacemen of the future varied between eighteen months and a decade.
# Professor Kirill Stanyukovick, writing in the monthly journal called "In Defence of Peace," said that if one or two more stages were added to Russia's ballistic rocket it would be quite enough for a trip to the moon within 18 months or two years. He said the moon might become a landing place for space ships and a laboratory for future atomic research.
# Professor Yuri Pobedonostsev, in the magazine "Yunost" (Youth) said flights to the moon would be possible within the next decade, and future Sputniks would tell whether life was possible on other planets. He said "substantial projects" for flights to the moon and to other planets were already in existence.
# Another Soviet scientist, Professor Petral Kekhin, wrote: "Even now one can imagine the day when people will hear from cosmic space the voice of the first man."

Manawatu Daily Times, Monday 27 January 1958, page 7
Krushchev boasts of Soviet might in ballistic missile field
Powerful ICBM can launch still heavier Sputniks, send them higher
(Received 10pm) Moscow, January 26
...

Manawatu Daily Times, Thursday 30 January 1958, page 7
Moon must become military base
(Received 7pm) Washington, January 20
# An Air Force general said today it was inevitable that the moon would become a military base that could be used to rain "massive destruction" on nations on earth.
# Brigadier-General Homer Boushey, deputy director of United States Air Force research and development, said that a moon base could be established by 1968. If no international space control agreement could be obtained, he said, "then the United States must control the moon. The conquest of space is vital to U.S. interests," he said.
# General Boushey said the "most important" military advantage of a U.S. moon base would be that it would put the Russians on notice that they faced "sure and massive destruction" within 48 hours if they ever launched a missile attack on the United States.

Manawatu Daily Times, Friday 7 February 1958, page 7
Call for drive to master space - Man behind U.S. satellite sees urgent challenge
(Received 11pm) Philadelphia, February 6
...

Manawatu Daily Times, Wednesday 12 February 1958, page 13
Prediction of rocket to moon
Washington, February 10
# Major General John Medaris said today his army ballistic missile agency could hit the moon with a rocket in a matter of months if given the "go ahead" and the money.
# General Medaris, whose agency launched the satellite Explorer ten days ago, also said the army could have fired the first United States satellite a year sooner if it had been given control of the project instead of the navy. He said more not less inter-service rivalry is needed. "I think... the intermediate range ballistic missiles - Air Force Thor and Army Jupiter - will be in operation perhaps as much as a year sooner" by having inter-service rivalry, he said.
# General Medaris appeared on the television programme, "Meet the Press." General Medaris said that although it would be possible in a matter of months to blast a rocket to the moon, it would be easier to put a satellite around it. He also said it would be "possible" to have a manned expedition landing on the moon in the next 15 years. But the next step in space, General Medaris said, was to launch larger satellites to carry more instruments to gain more data about space.
# He said the Army planned to put another 30.8lb satellite in space between now and April 1. After that it should jump to a 100lb sphere, and then to one weighing perhaps as much as 500lb.

Manawatu Daily Times, Monday 17 March 1958, page 7
Russian price for outer space control agreement
Liquidation of U.S. overseas bases demanded in peace plan
(Received 10:45pm) Moscow, March 15
...

Manawatu Daily Times, Thursday 20 March 1958, page 7
Manned satellites within five years?
(Received 9:50pm) Dallas, Texas, March 19
...[Forecasts by Dr Wernher von Braun.]
...Close race
# In Washington, Army scientist James Edson predicted the United States would fire a rocket to the moon within months, put a man on the moon in the early 1960s and set up a base there about 1975.
# Mr Edson, assistant to the director of Army research and development, made the predictions in an address to the Civilian Club. He said both the United States and Russia were now capable of shooting a rocket to the moon, adding: "The race will be close."
# Mr Edson said whichever country controlled the moon would be able to strike any place on earth with armed rockets without much fear of retaliation. He added it would be much easier to hit the earth from the moon than go from the earth to the moon.

Manawatu Daily Times, Saturday 22 March 1958, page 7
Plea against programme of "Buck Rogers stunts"
Scientists urge peaceful use of space travel technologies
(Received 10pm) Los Angeles, March 21
# Dr Lloyd Dubridge, president of the California Institute of Technology said yesterday it was "utter nonsense" to regard the moon as the ultimate military base for launching of weapons on earth targets.
# Dr Dubridge, addressing the opening session of the 1958 Western space age conference, urged against permitting the United States space programme to develop into a "wild programme of Buck Rogers stunts and insane pseudo-military expeditions." He urged instead "conducting a bold and exciting programme of research and exploration."
# Dr Dubridge listed three primary reasons that would discount the military advantages of the moon, despite statements to the contrary by some military generals who ought to know better." A hydrogen warhead, plus men and equipment, would have to be transported 240,000 miles "just to shoot it 240,000 miles back to earth when the target is only 5000 miles away in the first place. It would take a warhead five days to reach the earth because of space factors. "The war might be over by then. An intercontinental ballistic missile can reach any target on earth in 20 minutes."
# "If we have rockets good enough to land men and equipment on the moon, the enemy will surely have ones good enough to put a hydrogen bomb at the same spot."
# Dr Dubridge, whose jet propulsion laboratory at the institute played a major role in developing the United States satellite Explorer I, added: - "Either people will land on the moon for peaceful purposes by mutual agreement - or else we will surely launch the nuclear war here on earth which we are all trying to avoid."
# He said he thought that the challenge of the space age was to see "whether we can use the great new technologies of space travel for peaceful and scientific purposes - conducting a bold and exciting programme of research and exploration."

Hooray for Dr Dubridge's common sense. Modern kids seem to think they have big problems. At least they don't have to live with this sort of rhetoric like we did. It's certainly not nice to feel that you are just a helpless child and that at any time all life on the planet could be destroyed by mad military men in far-away countries. I saw the Starfish Prime nuclear explosion from here in New Zealand in 1962. It lit up the entire sky and blew out photometers in the South Island, and the Lower Hutt fire brigade raced up the Normandale hill to put out the fire. It was horrifying to see something like that -- it was exploded thousands of miles away above Johnson Island, near Hawaii.

<Fixed typos and formatting>

thanks Kiwi, your post is commendable one, that's nice. well zapodbeeblebrox
the comparative study is very important where no pressure and the low gravity how the atomic particles acts in that atmosphere of the moon that's important, "cran and kiwi both are correct."
astro always marks the supplimentary question that's nice one,
if the dust and the other ground particles after the explosion of a atomic bomb how much time span it will take to fall on the surface of the moon again? will we observe a cloud like substance from earth thereon moon? is there a possibility to creat the new element after mixing the exploded material with moons original content ?
Kiwi has wrote a broad article that's funtastic one.

sunil

Just a Basic Armoured Division ...

Say, Modified M-1 Abramses ...

What, Could Be Done to It?

And, Is There Any Advantage, to Using NUKES, Over More Conventional, Applications of Power?

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

Er, you mean "it's barren." Otherwise, the next obvious question is "Baron of what/where?"

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

U know what I ment. Not Snoopy's Red Baron. Ok, Barren.

I am not bothered by the odd spelling glitch. I find that most understand what it is I am saying.,or trying to say. This is not a school of the english language. With age comes tolerance. My interest in astronomy is not dependant on you understanding me. Language is a tool. Some of us are better at it than others. To Err is human. I am guilty of being a humanist.
I looked over the shoulder of a text messaging teenager. Is that english?

Try as I might. I can not see a logical reason for going into battle on the Lunar serface. As for strategic high ground. what is geo-static orbit, if its not that. Throwing rocks at earth could be done from earth orbit couldent it? Is not the moon a little fare out for any advantage, in a milatary way. why are we talking about wars in space? Havent we learnt yet?

Yes, you could throw rocks at the Earth from orbit, but:
1) You would have to get them there!
2) You would not have the kinetic energy that you would get by launching them down the Earth's gravity well that you would by launching from the Moon.

The Moon has three big advantages here:
1) The rocks are just sitting there.
2) Using a solar powered catapult means that launch costs are essentially free.
3) The Moon is near the top of the Earth's deep gravity well, meaning that all you have to do is get to lunar escape velocity and you can hit anywhere on Earth at its escape velocity. 100 tons hitting at 11 KPS is equivalent to about a 5 kiloton nuke, with no fallout.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Are you not forgetting our atmosphear.

You would have time and place your explosion fairly carefully to see any 'cloud' from it - perhaps just on the night side of the terminator, or on the limb as viewed from Earth, so that the uplifted dust will catch and diffuse the sunlight against a dark background ... then you might see a mild form of what the Galileo probe photographed on Io, a kind of hemispherical plume.

How long it takes to settle would depend firstly on its initial velocity; some of it may never settle but eventually rain down on Earth; what doesn't escape will settle at the rate dictated by the Moon's gravity, which must first overcome the particles' initial velocity.

I doubt you'll find any new elements formed; but you would certainly find a lot of altered minerals.

ZaphodBeeblebrox, no ... the simplest in that case would be to lure them out into the maria and let them flounder in the dust. Heavy ground armour would have a tough time in that terrain ... a well-armed light mobile division would run rings around them, I would think ... and you could give their spotters and radar some grief just by taking pot shots at the dust, especially if your 'shots' included iron filings ... the other thing you could try is some parabolic mirrors and focussing lenses, and cook them with sunlight.

Astromark, no that's not forgetting the atmosphere; a 100 ton rock would not burn up completely ... enough will get through to do damage ... the hardest part of the process would be to time the launch so that the strike is close to target ... unless you mount all sorts of steering jets, etc ... therefore to be effective, it would need to be a 'carpet bombing' exercise - not one rock, but a thousand, or ten thousand per strike.

__________________