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.
>>27803720
The shockwave would be painful and annoying
>>27803736
I'd worry more about the nukes and unshielded nuclear reactor.
Nuclear propulsion is a silly thing.
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
>>27803691
How much harder would this thing be to shoot down than a regular ICBM?
>>27803691
>Is there anything with more of a "fuck you" quality about it?
>>27803762
We scrapped it because of how unbelievably expensive it was.
Also, ICBMs could do they same thing for far less.
>>27803789
Then why's OP trying to make it such a big deal?
>>27803787
I shouldn't have laughed this hard
>>27803796
Because it was nuclear powered.
>>27803736
For you
I like the Hammer of Thor defence system.
>Take tungsten rod high up
>Release
>Power of a bomb without needing to worry about detonation.
>>27803789
Apparently nuclear propulsion isn't dead; researchers sete looking at powering vessels with matter-antimatter reactions using fissile nuclear fuel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter-catalyzed_nuclear_pulse_propulsion
Although figuring out how to safely store and use antimatter for longer than 1000 seconds is an expensive task within itself
>>27803796
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?
>>27803691
You're forgetting to mention the fact that if the Russians actually shot it down, the area if impact would be like another Chernobyl.
>>27803989
you say that like it's a bad thing
>>27803789
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.
>>27804004
Get out of here stalker
>>27803842
That and once we actually start interplanetary travel nuclear propulsion will be great. Lots of empty nothingness to spew the radiation into.
>>27804042
Assuming microwave thrusters don't pan out.
>>27803838
>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
>>27803691
>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.
>>27803720
It's a fucking nuclear reactor, a pound of uranium could keep the hot air coming for a week
>>27803783
Impossible with anything but lasers
>>27804321
While you are correct in that no fissle material leaves the reactor, a small fission power plant such as thi makes a fuck ton of gamma radiation and the missle has no insulation
>>27803691
>mach 3
>low altitude
>creating a destructing shock wave
>for months
no
>>27804445
just use barrage balloons.
>Nuclear powered jet flies through forest of steel cables
>is now nuclear powered confetti
>>27804486
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.
>>27804521
Barrage balloons immediately become known as efficient nuclear waste distribution systems
>>27803783
Near impossible at the time considering how low and fast it goes; would be ridiculously hard to shoot it down even using nuclear-tipped SAM's
>>27804289
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?
>>27803691
Dead Hand. Not really a weapon, but still pretty fucked up.
>>27804548
>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.
>>27804423
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.
>>27803691
>>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
>>27804423
>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
>>27804548
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.
>>27804321
>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.
>>27803720
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
>>27803736
Mach 3...
at 1300 ft.?
yes, it would be a light breeze honestly.
>>27803691
we have this thread literally every day
>>27805981
this.
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.
>>27803720
Unless the reactor core is disintegration it won't be.
>>27803787
Jesus, hes right. Why don't we just send a bunch of roody poos to russia?
That HAARP Project is pretty Fukt if you ask me
>>27803787
Gas. Smallpox. Anthrax.
>>27804657
Mach 3 is an easy target for pretty much any SAM after about 1965.
>>27808480
Niggers with Gas, Smallpox and Anthrax.
God help us.
>>27804486
Christ you're stupid.
