4 ms·

Obviously much smarter people than me were coming up with the reasons to not nuke the moon. I'm not convinced. Learning how the nuke acts in a vacuum is interes

Obviously much smarter people than me were coming up with the reasons to not nuke the moon. I'm not convinced. Learning how the nuke acts in a vacuum is interesting science. Seeing it from Earth is something of a power play. Affecting the moon's natural radiation and potentially destroying some undiscovered life seems really unlikely to me. But again, I'm about the furthest thing from an expert. I'm shocked we've not nuked it "just because," like the whales, you got to nuke somethin' (Simpson's reference; no, I don't support nuking whales, though, I'm pretty sure we have, and I think that is much worse than nuking the moon).

Jerrrry 3y ago
The smartest people on the planet wanted to nuke the moon; it was a great idea. It wouldn't make the classic mushroom cloud - it would be a spectacular sphere of luminescence; and by far the most powerful display of power to had ever been accomplished by man. In fact, von Neumann, citing his infamous Chaos Theory, wanted to preemptively strike the USSR. It's the stuff we didn't do we don't want to come to light the most.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  Indeed, it was less than half a decade later that Operation Fishbowl [0] commenced, a series of high-altitude nuclear tests, and they were pretty awe-some displays. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl
retrac 3y ago
It would affect the Moon's natural radiation. It would vaporize plutonium and other isotopes and this would be attracted by the Moon's gravity and eventually settle as a powder all over the Moon. (We did it to the Earth already. You can't find anywhere on the planet without detectable plutonium in the air or water.) This is maybe now less of a concern, now that we have samples returned for background comparison. Blowing up the Moon would still be a very compelling scientific experiment. I can't think of a cheaper or easier way to get spectroscopy of a sample from below the surface. And aside from the fallout (literal and political) there's not much downside. Wikipedia has an article about the proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119
- arethuza 3y ago
  "the flash of explosive light would have been faintly visible to people on Earth with their naked eye" That makes it sound like one of the reasons for cancelling it would have been that it really wouldn't have been that impressive.
  - eszed 3y ago
    If you picked the right spot at the right time of the month, could you get a mushroom cloud in "profile"? That would look pretty cool, though maybe still not large enough to see with the naked eye. I don't have a good intuition of the scales involved. [Edit: Or, wait: a mushroom cloud depends on atmosphere, doesn't it? So... What would a blast-created cloud of dust look like in a vacuum? Just a cloud? Yeah, not so impressive a visual.]
- thfuran 3y ago
  >This is maybe now less of a concern, now that we have samples returned for background comparison. As I understand it, the remaining Apollo samples are basically considered contaminated by earth now.

Jerrrry 3y ago

The smartest people on the planet wanted to nuke the moon; it was a great idea. It wouldn't make the classic mushroom cloud - it would be a spectacular sphere of luminescence; and by far the most powerful display of power to had ever been accomplished by man. In fact, von Neumann, citing his infamous Chaos Theory, wanted to preemptively strike the USSR. It's the stuff we didn't do we don't want to come to light the most.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Indeed, it was less than half a decade later that Operation Fishbowl [0] commenced, a series of high-altitude nuclear tests, and they were pretty awe-some displays. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl

retrac 3y ago

It would affect the Moon's natural radiation. It would vaporize plutonium and other isotopes and this would be attracted by the Moon's gravity and eventually settle as a powder all over the Moon. (We did it to the Earth already. You can't find anywhere on the planet without detectable plutonium in the air or water.) This is maybe now less of a concern, now that we have samples returned for background comparison. Blowing up the Moon would still be a very compelling scientific experiment. I can't think of a cheaper or easier way to get spectroscopy of a sample from below the surface. And aside from the fallout (literal and political) there's not much downside. Wikipedia has an article about the proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119

arethuza 3y ago
"the flash of explosive light would have been faintly visible to people on Earth with their naked eye" That makes it sound like one of the reasons for cancelling it would have been that it really wouldn't have been that impressive.
- eszed 3y ago
  If you picked the right spot at the right time of the month, could you get a mushroom cloud in "profile"? That would look pretty cool, though maybe still not large enough to see with the naked eye. I don't have a good intuition of the scales involved. [Edit: Or, wait: a mushroom cloud depends on atmosphere, doesn't it? So... What would a blast-created cloud of dust look like in a vacuum? Just a cloud? Yeah, not so impressive a visual.]
thfuran 3y ago
>This is maybe now less of a concern, now that we have samples returned for background comparison. As I understand it, the remaining Apollo samples are basically considered contaminated by earth now.