Is there any weapon more fucked up than project pluto?
Most of you know for those that don't:
>nuclear powered jet goes mach 3
>can fly for months
>self guides at low altitude, drops nuclear bombs
>Doesn't stop there.
>continues to circle at mach 3, at low altitude, creating a destructing shock wave as it circles... for months.
>Can also be programmed to fly over several cities.
>The whole time the engine is spewing radioactive waste.
Is there anything with more of a "fuck you" quality about it?
The longest test they did with they Tory-!!C engine was only 5 minutes long.
Flying around for months seems like a little bit of a stretch.
The shockwave wouldn't be too destructive, but the radiation would be.
I was reading about this this morning and started laughing out loud when I got to that part. The USA scrapped the project because "what if Russia came up with the same idea; we can't defend against a flying (critical) nuclear reactor with dozens of nukes attached to the payload"
>tfw the USA will never get back into the doomsday business
>Is there anything with more of a "fuck you" quality about it?
Apparently nuclear propulsion isn't dead; researchers sete looking at powering vessels with matter-antimatter reactions using fissile nuclear fuel
Although figuring out how to safely store and use antimatter for longer than 1000 seconds is an expensive task within itself
OP here, the point was that someone would come up with and try to develop a concept that is just so impressive in it's apoplectic nature.
That's not to say a giant nuke or a rod from god is polite or anything. I just can't help but wonder at what might have been developed that's even more mechanically hateful?
Biggest problem testing such missile would be very dangerous. To bad. Actually nuclear powered cruise missile is not not a bad idea even today. You can make Tomahawk size missile able to reach any part of the Earth. Quite a weapon for nuclear deterrence and retaliation strike. With small size it can easily hidden in shipping container and hidden in the truck traffic unlike IBCM.
>Tungston rods in space
>gravity powered, mass dependent projectiles
>doesn't take into consideration the cost of putting heavy, mass dependent projectiles in space
>lower estimates of cost for LEO is 5000-10000 dollars/pound.
>one kinetic rod would be almost 10 tons of tungsten
>cost of one rod would be 200,000,000
>for a 10 ton tnt equivalent explosion
>spewing radioactive waste
We've been over this before. Nuclear jet engines don't give off radioactive exhaust. Conventional jet engines generate thrust by heating incoming air by burning fuel. Nuclear jet engines generate thrust by heating incoming air by passing it over the reactor. No reactor contents ever enter the air stream.
gamma rays aren't that dangerous. Sure, they penetrate a great deal, but they aren't very ionizing. Beta and neutron radiation are what you need to worry about, but neither of those would be likely to make it outside the vehicle, even without shielding.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to create a small(ish) 400lb robot that can slice chunks of rock off of asteroids and comments then grapple them, spin around, build up momentum and sling them at precise vectors towards earth?
>gamma rays aren't that dangerous. Sure, they penetrate a great deal, but they aren't very ionizing. Beta and neutron radiation are what you need to worry about, but neither of those would be likely to make it outside the vehicle, even without shielding.
Sure low numbers of gamma rays from a small source are not a problem, but from an active reactor they can be rather nasty.
You'll get mechanical wear and it will fall out of the air in hours or days. Between ablation from air friction and exhaust deforming the jets the airframe would fail long before the nuclear fuel was depleted.
>>continues to circle at mach 3, at low altitude
no materials could survive the temperature increase of doing this for long periods of time at a low enough altitude for the sonic shockwave to be harmful
it is also very unlikely you could get a reactor light enough that would "run for months" and at the same time output the 50,000+ continuous horsepower need to do this
>It's a fucking nuclear reactor, a pound of uranium could keep the hot air coming for a week
reactors do not scale well
while it's true that a pound of uranium has a lot of power in it there is no good way to get it out at a rapid rate without it causing a runaway reaction and going off like a bomb
The stupid... this post... it burns.
>gamma rays aren't that dangerous
Yes they are.
>they aren't very ionizing
They are the very definition of ionizing. Any electron they hit will go shooting off with enough energy to be a beta particle in its own right.
>Beta and neutron radiation are what you need to worry about
Neutron, yes. Beta, no. You can stop it with some heavy cloths. It's only particularly dangerous if you ingest or inhale beta emitting materials.
>those would be likely to make it outside the vehicle
Neutron radiation will go through your car, your house, and a few feet of concrete. And if they hit a heavy nuclei they tend to create an unstable isotope or induce another round of fission.
>Nuclear jet engines don't give off radioactive exhaust.
It depends on the engine type and how tight and light you want its design. Single circut ramjet may be losing reactor contents through heat exchanger walls if they are thin enough.
it only lasted for 5 minutes because in that amount of time the engine had burned through over 25 miles of oil well piping which contained over 1,000,000 pounds of compressed air inside
it was a ramjet, and thus, needed air to ram. in actual operation this would be the atmosphere being rammed in super-quick due to pluto's rocket-assisted launch and initial cruise. on the ground, it was a bunch of pipes, which only contained so much air.
That HAARP Project is pretty Fukt if you ask me
Niggers with Gas, Smallpox and Anthrax.
God help us.