4 ms·

There are a lot of reasons why this is a bad idea, not least of which is the effects of the resulting electromagnetic pulses on satellites, the earth, and the e

There are a lot of reasons why this is a bad idea, not least of which is the effects of the resulting electromagnetic pulses on satellites, the earth, and the equipment on board the vehicle itself. There is also the radioactive fallout that would affect human populations all over the world. Detonating nuclear weapons at high altitudes or in space would also disturb or damage the van allen belts and expose the surface of the earth to high levels of radiation from solar winds and cosmic rays. And of course there is the fact that it's a violation of international law to bring nuclear weapons to space or to test or detonate them in the atmosphere or in space.

politician 4y ago
> Detonating nuclear weapons at high altitudes or in space would also disturb or damage the van allen belts and expose the surface of the earth to high levels of radiation from solar winds and cosmic rays. Could you please elaborate on the effects of high nuclear altitude testing on the belts? Preferably, a link to a paper.
- cjtrowbridge 4y ago
  The belts are filled with captured charged particles which deflect cosmic rays and protect the earth from them. If you blow them away, those rays will get through. One of the Project Orion proposals outlined in the linked wiki is about how to mitigate the impact somewhat by launching from unpopulated areas so that humans are not affected by the resulting radiation that gets through the hole you punch in the earth's protective charged particle shield.
  - politician 4y ago
    I think you've misunderstood what the Van Allen radiation belts are. Here's a direct quote from the first paragraph on Wikipedia. > A Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind, that are captured by and held around a planet by that planet's magnetosphere. Earth has two such belts, and sometimes others may be temporarily created. The belts are named after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery.[1] Earth's two main belts extend from an altitude of about 640 to 58,000 km (400 to 36,040 mi)[2] above the surface, in which region radiation levels vary. Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays.[3] By trapping the solar wind, the magnetic field deflects those energetic particles and protects the atmosphere from destruction. To recap: - The radiation (aka charged particles, aka cosmic rays) is captured by the Earth's magnetosphere. - The particles are deflected and steered around/away from the planet. - You can't blow up a magnetic field lines with a bomb since they originate from within the planet's core. - You can change the velocity of the charged particles themselves by detonating a nuclear device nearby, but... - Such a device wouldn't affect more than a small number of particles (many would be in Earth's shadow), and would only affect them with pressure from the X-rays and other light released from the explosion because there's no air in space that can carry a pressure wave. - The Orion proposals are talking about mitigating the damage from detonating nukes in atmosphere, specifically fallout. I think that there's no chance we'd ever take the risk of launching from Earth into orbit using an Orion drive, the fallout cannot be contained. However, I do think that we should explore using an Orion drive in the area beyond Earth orbit. There are proposals to hang a tether between the belts and use the charge gradient along the tether to generate electricity -- using the belts as a giant battery. Hoyt, Robert P., and Bryan M. Minor. "Remediation of radiation belts using electrostatic tether structures." 2005 IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE, (2005). http://web.archive.org/web/20110517200032/http://www.tethers.com/papers/ES_Remediation_IEEE_Paper.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20110517200032/http://www.tethers...
    - cjtrowbridge 4y ago
      Fallout, and the particles captured in the belts are essentially the same thing from different sources. Yea it's not "blowing up" the field, it's dispersing the captured particles. The earth's magnetic field is not evenly, statically distributed. The lines of force could be seen as moving, they are not like in a fixed place. Captured particles set up an additional field which deflects more particles from coming through. Dispersing them means new particles can come through. For example, this deflection effect is thinner at the poles which is why more particles come through there, leading the the northern and southern lights. That's why during periods of high solar wind intensity such as solar storms, the lights sometimes occupy a much larger part of the sky and move closer to the equator. If you read the whole wiki page, there is a more detailed explanation including simulations showing how it works. From the first paragraph, "Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays. By trapping the solar wind, the magnetic field deflects those energetic particles and protects the atmosphere from destruction."
- neltnerb 4y ago
  I'll leave it to you to find the paper, but this has been done experimentally and the results measured. https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/07/01/128170775/a-very-scary-light-show-exploding-h-bombs-in-space https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/07/01/128170775/a... > Code-named "Starfish Prime" by the military, it literally created an artificial extension of the Van Allen belts that could be seen across the Pacific Ocean, from Hawaii to New Zealand.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_radiation_belts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_radiation_b... It wouldn't expose the Earth to cosmic rays, but it would damage satellites.
toss1 4y ago
Sure, those are problems if the Orion method is used inside the orbital region. However, if used after escaping from Earth's gravity well to accelerate towards distant destinations, the only remaining issue is international law. Electromagnetic pulses decay as the inverse square law, radioactive fallout would be outside the Earth's gravity well and disperse harmlessly in space, the Van Allen belts are also not near enough to be affected. The only real risk would be from accidents while lifting that much fissile material to space, which could be mitigated by proper containment vessels (which do add weight and reduce effective payload, but the total lift may still be worth the cost)
- cjtrowbridge 4y ago
  You have it backwards.
Rooster61 4y ago
I've always wondered if we could mitigate this issue by burning the spacecraft into a parking orbit around the L2 Lagrange Point on the far side of the moon using conventional propellant, and then beginning detonation there. Irradiating Earth is of course a bad idea, but the Earth Moon L2 point should be plenty far enough away, provides a stable spot from which to begin pulsing in whatever direction they like as the moon orbits, and has the added benefit of the moon itself acting as a shield for the Earth from the radiation. It doesn't really matter if we irradiate the hell out of the far side of the moon. It's been pelted by solar wind and cosmic radiation since time immemorial. A bit of radiation from a few nukes should be negligible by comparison.
- cjtrowbridge 4y ago
  Read the wiki. This idea has already been explored and rejected.
- ithkuil 4y ago
  The Moon is very far away. Can we really build strong enough fusion bombs that they would irradiate people down to earth even if they were at half of the distance between earth and moon?

politician 4y ago

> Detonating nuclear weapons at high altitudes or in space would also disturb or damage the van allen belts and expose the surface of the earth to high levels of radiation from solar winds and cosmic rays. Could you please elaborate on the effects of high nuclear altitude testing on the belts? Preferably, a link to a paper.

cjtrowbridge 4y ago
The belts are filled with captured charged particles which deflect cosmic rays and protect the earth from them. If you blow them away, those rays will get through. One of the Project Orion proposals outlined in the linked wiki is about how to mitigate the impact somewhat by launching from unpopulated areas so that humans are not affected by the resulting radiation that gets through the hole you punch in the earth's protective charged particle shield.
- politician 4y ago
  I think you've misunderstood what the Van Allen radiation belts are. Here's a direct quote from the first paragraph on Wikipedia. > A Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind, that are captured by and held around a planet by that planet's magnetosphere. Earth has two such belts, and sometimes others may be temporarily created. The belts are named after James Van Allen, who is credited with their discovery.[1] Earth's two main belts extend from an altitude of about 640 to 58,000 km (400 to 36,040 mi)[2] above the surface, in which region radiation levels vary. Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays.[3] By trapping the solar wind, the magnetic field deflects those energetic particles and protects the atmosphere from destruction. To recap: - The radiation (aka charged particles, aka cosmic rays) is captured by the Earth's magnetosphere. - The particles are deflected and steered around/away from the planet. - You can't blow up a magnetic field lines with a bomb since they originate from within the planet's core. - You can change the velocity of the charged particles themselves by detonating a nuclear device nearby, but... - Such a device wouldn't affect more than a small number of particles (many would be in Earth's shadow), and would only affect them with pressure from the X-rays and other light released from the explosion because there's no air in space that can carry a pressure wave. - The Orion proposals are talking about mitigating the damage from detonating nukes in atmosphere, specifically fallout. I think that there's no chance we'd ever take the risk of launching from Earth into orbit using an Orion drive, the fallout cannot be contained. However, I do think that we should explore using an Orion drive in the area beyond Earth orbit. There are proposals to hang a tether between the belts and use the charge gradient along the tether to generate electricity -- using the belts as a giant battery. Hoyt, Robert P., and Bryan M. Minor. "Remediation of radiation belts using electrostatic tether structures." 2005 IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE, (2005). http://web.archive.org/web/20110517200032/http://www.tethers.com/papers/ES_Remediation_IEEE_Paper.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20110517200032/http://www.tethers...
  - cjtrowbridge 4y ago
    Fallout, and the particles captured in the belts are essentially the same thing from different sources. Yea it's not "blowing up" the field, it's dispersing the captured particles. The earth's magnetic field is not evenly, statically distributed. The lines of force could be seen as moving, they are not like in a fixed place. Captured particles set up an additional field which deflects more particles from coming through. Dispersing them means new particles can come through. For example, this deflection effect is thinner at the poles which is why more particles come through there, leading the the northern and southern lights. That's why during periods of high solar wind intensity such as solar storms, the lights sometimes occupy a much larger part of the sky and move closer to the equator. If you read the whole wiki page, there is a more detailed explanation including simulations showing how it works. From the first paragraph, "Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays. By trapping the solar wind, the magnetic field deflects those energetic particles and protects the atmosphere from destruction."
neltnerb 4y ago
I'll leave it to you to find the paper, but this has been done experimentally and the results measured. https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/07/01/128170775/a-very-scary-light-show-exploding-h-bombs-in-space https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/07/01/128170775/a... > Code-named "Starfish Prime" by the military, it literally created an artificial extension of the Van Allen belts that could be seen across the Pacific Ocean, from Hawaii to New Zealand.
pfdietz 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_radiation_belts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_radiation_b... It wouldn't expose the Earth to cosmic rays, but it would damage satellites.

toss1 4y ago

Sure, those are problems if the Orion method is used inside the orbital region. However, if used after escaping from Earth's gravity well to accelerate towards distant destinations, the only remaining issue is international law. Electromagnetic pulses decay as the inverse square law, radioactive fallout would be outside the Earth's gravity well and disperse harmlessly in space, the Van Allen belts are also not near enough to be affected. The only real risk would be from accidents while lifting that much fissile material to space, which could be mitigated by proper containment vessels (which do add weight and reduce effective payload, but the total lift may still be worth the cost)

cjtrowbridge 4y ago
You have it backwards.

Rooster61 4y ago

I've always wondered if we could mitigate this issue by burning the spacecraft into a parking orbit around the L2 Lagrange Point on the far side of the moon using conventional propellant, and then beginning detonation there. Irradiating Earth is of course a bad idea, but the Earth Moon L2 point should be plenty far enough away, provides a stable spot from which to begin pulsing in whatever direction they like as the moon orbits, and has the added benefit of the moon itself acting as a shield for the Earth from the radiation. It doesn't really matter if we irradiate the hell out of the far side of the moon. It's been pelted by solar wind and cosmic radiation since time immemorial. A bit of radiation from a few nukes should be negligible by comparison.

cjtrowbridge 4y ago
Read the wiki. This idea has already been explored and rejected.
ithkuil 4y ago
The Moon is very far away. Can we really build strong enough fusion bombs that they would irradiate people down to earth even if they were at half of the distance between earth and moon?