The crazy plan to explode a nuclear bomb on the Moon

 

International Conference on Nuclear Physics





The moment astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped out on to the Moon's surface in 1969 is one of the most memorable moments in history.

But what if the Moon Armstrong stepped onto was scarred by huge craters and poisoned from the effects of nuclear bombardment?

At first reading, the title of the research paper – A Study of Lunar Research Flights, Vol 1 – sounds blandly bureaucratic and peaceful. The kind of paper easy to ignore. And that was probably the point.

Glance at the cover, however, and things look a little different.








Emblazoned in the centre is a shield depicting an atom, a nuclear bomb, and a mushroom cloud – the emblem of the Air Force Special Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, which played a key role in the development and testing of nuclear weapons.

You might also like:How do you build a Moon base?
The lost nuclear bombs that no-one can find
Yuri Gagarin: the spaceman who came in from the cold

Down at the bottom is the author's name: L Reiffel, or Leonard Reiffel, one of America's leading nuclear physicists. He worked with Enrico Fermi, the creator of the world's first nuclear reactor who is known as the "architect of the nuclear bomb".

Project A119, as it was known, was a top-secret proposal to detonate a hydrogen bomb on the Moon. Hydrogen bombs were vastly more destructive than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, and the latest in nuclear weapon design at the time. Asked to "fast track" the project by senior officers in the Air Force, Reiffel produced many reports between May 1958 and January 1959 on the feasibility of the plan.




Incredibly, one scientist enabling this horrific scheme was future visionary Carl Sagan. In fact, the existence of the project was only discovered in the 1990s because Sagan had mentioned it on an application to an elite university.

While it might have helped to answer some rudimentary scientific questions about the Moon, Project A119's primary purpose was as a show of force. The bomb would explode on the appropriately named Terminator Line – the border between the light and dark side of the Moon – to create a bright flash of light that anyone, but particularly anyone in the Kremlin, could see with the naked eye. The absence of an atmosphere meant there wouldn't be a mushroom cloud.

There is only one convincing explanation for proposing such a horrendous plan – and the motivation for it lies somewhere between insecurity and desperation.


It didn't help American nerves that Sputnik was launched on top of a Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile


In the 1950s, it didn't look like America was winning the Cold War. Political and popular opinion in the United States held that the Soviet Union was ahead in the growth of its nuclear arsenal, particularly in the development, and number, of nuclear bombers ("the bomber gap") and nuclear missiles ("the missile gap").

In 1952, the US had exploded the first hydrogen bomb. Three years later the Soviets shocked Washington by exploding their own. In 1957 they went one better, stealing a lead in the space race with the launch of Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite in orbit around the world.

It didn't help American nerves that Sputnik was launched on top of a Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile – albeit a modified one – nor that the US's own attempt to launch an "artificial moon" ended in a huge, fiery explosion. The inferno that consumed their Vanguard rocket was captured on film and shown around the world. A British newsreel at the time was brutal: "THE VANGUARD FAILS…a big setback indeed…in the realm of prestige and propaganda..."



All the while, US schoolchildren were being shown the famous "Duck and Cover" information film, in which Bert the animated turtle helps teach children what to do in the event of a nuclear attack.

Later that same year, US newspapers citing a senior intelligence source reported that "Soviets to H-Bomb Moon On Revolution Anniversary Nov 7" (The Daily Times, New Philadelphia, Ohio) and then followed it up with reports that the Soviets might already be planning to launch a nuclear-armed rocket at our nearest neighbour.

Like with other Cold War rumours, its origins are hard to fathom.

Strangely, this scare also likely motivated the Soviets to develop their plans. Codenamed E4, their plan was a carbon copy of the Americans', and eventually dismissed by the Soviets for similar reasons – the fear that a failed launch could result in the bomb dropping down on Soviet soil. They described the potential for a "highly undesirable international incident".

They may have simply realised that landing on the Moon was the bigger prize.

But Project A119 would have worked.

In 2000 Reiffel had his say. He confirmed that it was "technically feasible", and that the explosion would have been visible on Earth.

The loss of the pristine lunar environment was less of a worry to the US Air Force despite the scientists' concerns.

"Project A119 was one of several ideas that were floated for an exciting response to Sputnik," says Alex Wellerstein, a historian of science and nuclear technology, "that included shooting down Sputnik, which feels very spiteful. They refer to them as stunts… designed to impress people.

"Now what they did in the end was put up their own satellite, and that took a little while, but they continued this project somewhat seriously, into at least the late 1950s.

"It is a pretty interesting window into the sort of American mindset at that time. This push to compete in a way that creates something very impressive. I think, in this case, impressive and horrifying are a bit too close to each other."

He isn't sure that fear of the anti-communist witch hunt made nuclear physicists work on this project. "Anyone who's in these roles is probably self-selected to some degree," he says. "They don't mind doing the work. If they were afraid, they could do a million other things. A lot of scientists did this in the Cold War; they said physics has gotten too political."


#NuclearPhysics#ParticlePhysics#NuclearReactions#QuantumMechanics#NuclearFission
#NuclearFusion#SubatomicParticles#AtomicNucleus#NuclearEnergy
#NuclearResearch#NuclearAstrophysics#NuclearStructure#NuclearModels
#NuclearDecay#Neutrinos


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Shape-shifting experiment challenges interpretation of how cadmium nuclei move

Image
Atomic nuclei take a range of shapes, from spherical (like a basketball) to deformed (like an American football). Spherical nuclei are often described by the motion of a small fraction of the protons and neutrons, while deformed nuclei tend to rotate as a collective whole. A third kind of motion has been proposed since the 1950s. In this motion, known as nuclear vibration, atomic nuclei fluctuate about an average shape. Scientists recently investigated cadmium-106 using a technique called Coulomb excitation to probe its nuclear shape . They found clear experimental evidence that the vibrational description fails for this isotope's nucleus. This finding is counter to the expected results. Research published in Physics Letters B builds on a long quest to understand the transition between spherical and deformed nuclei . This transition often includes vibrational motion as an intermediate step. The new result suggests that nuclear physicists may need to revise the long-standing para...
Read more

HOMESPACE NEWS Mysterious Physics Revealed: “One of the Most Violent Events You Can Imagine in the Universe”

Image
Recent simulations of two black holes colliding at close to the speed of light have shed light on the enigmatic physics behind what has been called by one astrophysicist as “one of the most violent events you can imagine in the universe.” The findings, published in Physical Review Letters, is the first detailed look at the aftermath of such a cataclysmic clash, and shows how a remnant black hole would form and send gravitational waves through the cosmos. Black hole mergers are one of the few events in the universe energetic enough to produce detectable gravitational waves, which carry energy produced by massive cosmic collisions. Like ripples in a pond, these waves flow through the universe distorting space and time. But unlike waves traveling through water, they are extremely tiny, and propagate through “spacetime,” the mind-bending concept that combines the three dimensions of space with the idea of time. This simulation shows two black holes colliding near the speed of light, revea...
Read more

Nuclear power: The safer and cheaper alternative to fossil fuels

Image
As countries across the globe struggle to balance their desire for a reliable energy supply with their contribution to climate change, nuclear power presents a solution. The global reliance on fossil fuels is a function of our energy needs, and although there have been numerous initiatives implemented in order to reduce demand, such as levying large taxes on air transport, appropriate sources of supply still need to be defined. Fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas have the benefit of being capable of servicing our energy needs. However, they are a chief contributor to climate change, and as countries attempt to meet the Paris Agreement of keeping global temperature below 2o above pre-industrial levels, non-carbon energy sources are essential. Positives and negatives So, what are the pros and cons of nuclear power as a safer, cheaper alternative to fossil fuels? Well, where renewable sources such as wind or solar are clean, they are also intermittent, require an uneven geographical ...
Read more