why were missions to moon stopped?

reply to post by crazyewok


Yes it was the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that stopped Project Orion:

It is officially known as the treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, but is often abbreviated as the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT), or Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (NTBT) - although the latter also refers to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It was signed by the governments of the Soviet Union (represented by Andrei Gromyko), the United Kingdom (represented by Lord Home) and the United States (represented by Dean Rusk), named the "Original Parties", at Moscow on August 5, 1963 before being opened for signature by other countries. It was ratified by the U.S. Senate on September 24, 1963 by a vote of 80 to 19. The treaty went into effect on October 10, 1963.

Personally I think we've detonated enough nukes on the surface and in our atmosphere. However, building a craft in space that uses this type of propulsion doesn't bother me, so long as nothing from it enters our atmosphere.

So why they had to include "outerspace" in the treaty is beyond me.

reply to post by eriktheawful


There have been nuclear tests in the upper atmosphere / lower space regions, and such a blast produces a strong EM pulse that could knock out satellites. It also leaves a radiation belt that might likewise be harmful to satellites and astronauts. en.wikipedia.org...

Starfish Prime produced an artificial radiation belt in space which soon destroyed three satellites (Ariel, TRAAC, and Transit 4B all failed after traversing the radiation belt, while Cosmos V, Injun I and Telstar 1 suffered minor degradation, due to some radiation damage to solar cells, etc.). The radiation dose rate was at least 60 rads/day at four months after Starfish for a well-shielded satellite or manned capsule in a polar circular earth orbit, which caused NASA concern with regard to its manned space exploration programs.

By the way, Starfish Prime was conducted at the altitude of 400 km, the same as used by the ISS.

reply to post by wildespace


Then you build it further away, either at 22,000 miles out in geosynchronous orbit, or even further at one of the L points.

Simply using the word: "Outerspace" was wrong, in that is defined and anywhere once you've left the Earth's atmosphere.

That means, technically, anyone or group of countries trying to use nuclear bombs to "push" an asteroid out of the way so that it doesn't impact with the earth would be in violation of this treaty.

I'm pretty sure we'd ignore it in that case as it would be used to save the Earth from something devistating event.

I have to agree that the treaty should be revisited and worded in a much better way.

reply to post by eriktheawful


That why you use "clean" nuke

They exist both russia and USA developed them.

And yeah i know about the badly worded treaty...

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

That why you use "clean" nuke

They exist both russia and USA developed them.

And yeah i know about the badly worded treaty...

Well the "bombs" for the Orion Project are not simply bombs from nuclear ICBMs or anything like that. You can't just grab the warheads from there and use them for the space craft.

They would be of a different design, made to give a specifically metered nuclear impulse, to detonate at a specific point in the rear bell for maximum pushing.

The irony isn't lost on me that Project Orion takes a weapon of mass destruction, that we built to kill a lot of people and threaten others with, and instead use it for an actual peaceful purpose. Almost a literal take on beating swords in to plows.

Originally posted by eriktheawful


Well the "bombs" for the Orion Project are not simply bombs from nuclear ICBMs or anything like that. You can't just grab the warheads from there and use them for the space craft.

They would be of a different design, made to give a specifically metered nuclear impulse, to detonate at a specific point in the rear bell for maximum pushing.

Erm yeah I know that.

Hense my saying that the nukes used in the Orion bomb would be "Clean" not the standard ICBM or tactical nukes.

If I rember correctly they would have been simliar to the russian peace bomb that the USSR wanted to use to dig quarrys and roads with.


Setting some like this off on a platform at see of some dessert would pose little risk.

Plus if your sending up million ton ships you would only need to launch a couple a year and could soon start building them on the moon once the intrastructurs up.

You then use the chem rockets to resupply these monsters once in space.

reply to post by sparky31


The Illuminati started a new program the Space Shuttle.
Real or fake Mission, the money for Moon mission equipment must
have been getting more expensive. Wonder why.

Soviets beat us on orbiting humans so we went along and became
friends.

End of story except for the Mars pumpers and beyond.
Stick to scenario writing and send believers on their way.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
....The irony isn't lost on me that Project Orion takes a weapon of mass destruction, that we built to kill a lot of people and threaten others with, and instead use it for an actual peaceful purpose. Almost a literal take on beating swords in to plows.

Me neither, Erik, good insight. Actually, rockets themselves are an even better example.

The first cosmonauts and astronauts rode on vehicles that had been built to commit mass murder. The fact that, in the end, they never DID so, has got to be inspiring.

Even the V-2 rocket, which killed thousands with its warheads and thousands more in its slave factories, arguably saved millions of lives by being inefficient but hyper-expensive killers, that military historians credit with ending the war probably a year earlier.

But tell that to the families of the direct victims? I have done so, since my family was in line to be among the millions of victims of a continued war in Europe and Asia.

Anyhow, nice comment, thanks, Erik.