5 ms·
Starfish Prime, outer space nuclear test
- tkeller 16y ago> Seven satellites were destroyed as radiation knocked out their solar arrays or electronics. Jerks.
- mkramlich 16y agofunny, but I bet given the time period the sats were mostly US or Soviet and the folks running the op may not have minded losing some US sats if it meant learning what would happen to the Ruskie sats -- by total accident, of course!
- openfly 16y agoThis is the scariest article I've ever read.
- arethuza 16y agoIf you think that is bad then have a read of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upshot-Knothole_Harry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upshot-Knothole_Harry Not to mention some of the alarming Soviet tests, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
- izend 16y agoNot as scary as if the Tsar Bomb was detonated in space above North America. It would wipe out the entire power grid of the continent.
- rbanffy 16y agoAt 27 tons, it would require a Delta IV-class vehicle to haul it there. That would be quite an impressive ICBM Now that I said that, we need to place a couple of there in LEO for the time non-EMP-hardened machines take over the world ;-)
- pyre 16y ago> Now that I said that, we need to place a couple of > there in LEO for the time non-EMP-hardened machines > take over the world ;-) Just need to make sure that SkyNet doesn't know about/have control over them...
- CapitalistCartr 16y agoWhen I was in the Air Force, our equipment was archaic by the standards of contemporary consumer electronics, lots of electro-mechanical stuff. But with its shielding, it was nearly bulletproof. No worries about EMP, or "Wargames" silliness.
- hga 16y agoThe SS-9/18 family had options for half that yield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_%28missile%29). Note that if you're willing to deal with the fallout, you can double the yield of a design like the Tsar Bomba by switching the fusion tamper from lead to U238. I'd suspect the SS-9/18 family 25 Mt warheads achieved their yield by using the latter due to the weight savings (a bit more weight doubles your yield, and if it's exploding on enemy territory...).
- ScotterC 16y agoWe may have tested one to many nuclear warheads in our time but for the most part they did lead to a better understanding. The fallout's damage is negligible.
- scotty79 16y ago> These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low earth orbit. > Wilmot Hess reported in 1968 that some Starfish electrons remained for five years I guess that came unexpected.
- westbywest 16y ago"Seven satellites were destroyed as radiation knocked out their solar arrays or electronics, including the first commercial relay communication satellite ever, Telstar." Such an explosion today would probably cripple global communications for a month. The device used in this test had a 1.4 Megaton yield, and present speculation paints Israel as the sole, non-NNPT signatory that may possess megaton devices, which is not to imply Israel has any obvious motivation for doing something like this in the near future. However, as the number non-NNPT signatories grow in number and in yield stockpiled, so does the risk of someone (again) triggering such an explosion intentionally.
- dkberktas 16y agoAnd the reason is ...
- tkahn6 16y agoOthers reported that radioactive particles from Starfish Prime descended to earth seasonally and accumulated in terrestrial organisms such as fungi and lichens.[citation needed] Major citation needed there.
- mkramlich 16y agoit's what caused The Day of the Triffids, duh! :)
- jberryman 16y agothis is going to be on all things considered today.
- mkramlich 16y agoWhen I was younger and learned about all the bat shit crazy stuff like this the US military was doing with nuclear weapons, I assumed that it would cause long term insidious effects on human health, even if it happened only in indirect ways via the ecosystem and atmosphere. Today, I'm not convinced either way. But when there are reports saying cancer incidence has increased over the last half of this century, and you add to that picture all the crazy nuclear testing that went on plus all the new chemicals put into agricultural soil, food, water, etc. and the rise of plastic containers, all without any valid long term health testing done beforehand, you can't help but think there's going to be a connection. "Hey lets's have a naked roof party and watch the nuclear bomb explode in the sky because it'll be groovy, baby!!!"
- hga 16y agoPlease, you'd expect cancer incidence to go up if for no other reason than that we're dieing less from other causes.
- adriand 16y agoBecause detonating nuclear weapons on the earth, in the earth, in the oceans, in the air, and in space near the earth, could not possibly cause cancer.
- ori_b 16y agoHow? Remember, the radiation changes from this stuff is lost in the background noise you get from materials released when burning coal, or from the minute amounts of radioactive material in bananas, or the radioactive materials in smoke alarms.
- thebigshane 16y agoMaybe I am a total inconsiderate jerk, but I think this is cool. Using nuclear power as weapons is bad, but the technology is just... cool.
- c1sc0 16y agoSometimes I wish wee born earlier just to be able to safely witness one of those experiments.
- mkramlich 16y agoThis sort of seemingly naive Disney-like way of dealing with and communicating about nuclear weapons -- esp in material produced for the public by the US defense/energy depts from the 50's to the 70's -- is what directly inspired the style and sense of humor shown in the Wasteland/Fallout games.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- hga 16y agoFrom my readings many years ago we were pretty sure the Soviets had discovered the EMP effect that Starfish Prime revealed to us. Imagine the possible consequences if we'd remained innocent of the phenomena. I also wonder how much of what we "know" is based on simulations based off the inadequate data we captured in this one test.