Public
- Public
- Network
- Groups
- Popular
- People

Conversation

Notices

Winchell Chung ⚛🚀 (nyrath@spacey.space)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:06:16 JST Winchell Chung ⚛🚀

Plastic model of the dreaded Project Pluto nightmare missile
https://fantastic-plastic.com/project-pluto-slam---catalog.html
In conversation about a year ago from spacey.space permalink
Attachments
1. Project Pluto SLAM Missile by Fantastic Plastic
  
  A 1:72 scale resin model of the Project Pluto SLAM Missile from 1967.
- Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:05:58 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️
  in reply to
  @cstross @green_bens @MichaelPhillips @Hcobb @nyrath I'm not sure I like the idea of launching a ship full of enriched nuclear materials on a very explodey chemical rocket. That seems like just trading a very bad launch every time for a world-ending launch every one out of a hundred times, with a somewhat cleaner launch the other 99 times.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Charlie Stross (cstross@wandering.shop)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:05:59 JST Charlie Stross
  in reply to
  @green_bens @MichaelPhillips @Hcobb @nyrath Naah, just stick it on top of a SpaceX Superheavy (scaled up, if necessary). Second test flight left the pad in good shape, the new sound suppression system worked! (And a fueled-up Starship—the booster's payload—currently weighs 1200 tons at staging, although they're stretching the next version …)
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- BensGreenGamingAc (green_bens@mastodon.green)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:06:06 JST BensGreenGamingAc
  in reply to
  @cstross @MichaelPhillips @Hcobb @nyrath It would need to be a helluva sound suppression system - unless you go the SeaDragon route and launch from IN the sea.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Charlie Stross (cstross@wandering.shop)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:06:07 JST Charlie Stross
  in reply to
  - MichaelPhillips
  - Henry Cobb
  @MichaelPhillips @Hcobb @nyrath Launching from any altitude below the tropopause is madness—even if your launch planet is uninhabited/able, you run the riskof reflected shockwaves.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- MichaelPhillips (michaelphillips@dice.camp)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:06:08 JST MichaelPhillips
  in reply to
  - Henry Cobb
  @Hcobb @nyrath off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons. One is not wanting your propulsion source to have lateral movement. And the second is the fact you need to be able to get that bomb under the plate when it's on the ground
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Henry Cobb (hcobb@spacey.space)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:06:13 JST Henry Cobb
  in reply to
  - MichaelPhillips
  @nyrath @MichaelPhillips Question about Orion drives in general that this pic reminds of:
  Why do you have a hole in the middle of the shield instead of tossing bombs in from the side?
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Winchell Chung ⚛🚀 (nyrath@spacey.space)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:06:14 JST Winchell Chung ⚛🚀
  in reply to
  - MichaelPhillips
  @MichaelPhillips
  Sadly, no.
  They used to have a plastic model of the Orion drive battleship, but it has been discontinued
  https://fantastic-plastic.com/project-orion-battleship---retired.html
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. Untitled attachment
    https://cdn.masto.host/spaceyspace/media_attachments/files/111/564/884/206/343/376/original/076b2cfcbb52f3dd.jpg
  2. Project Orion Battleship 1:288 Model Kit by Fantastic Plastic
    
    A1:288 scale resin model kit of the Project Orion Battleship by Fantastic Plastic Models.
- MichaelPhillips (michaelphillips@dice.camp)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:06:15 JST MichaelPhillips
  in reply to
  
  @nyrath do they have the last concept version of the Orion drive craft? The original one, not the modern project. Orion
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:08:37 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️
  in reply to
  @cstross @green_bens @MichaelPhillips @Hcobb @nyrath either way it just seems like an Orion launch (either way) is not something you should do on a planet with a biosphere, at least when you want it to keep having a biosphere afterwards
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Foone🏳️‍⚧️ (foone@digipres.club)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:22:17 JST Foone🏳️‍⚧️
  in reply to
  @whvholst @cstross @green_bens @MichaelPhillips @Hcobb @nyrath maybe. But I can't help but keep thinking about the Atomic Rockets line about "diluted into plausible deniability".
  Although I guess it makes sense. A relatively clean detonation high enough up isn't going to result in much fallout. (Although aren't you going to EMP the surface?)
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Walter van Holst (whvholst@eupolicy.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2023 03:22:18 JST Walter van Holst
  in reply to
  @foone @cstross @green_bens @MichaelPhillips @Hcobb @nyrath Nah, fallout from high altitude nuclear detonations is not an extinction event, even if it involves a few thousands of them.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Charlie Stross (cstross@wandering.shop)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 01:43:30 JST Charlie Stross
  in reply to
  @whvholst @MichaelPhillips @simonbp @_thegeoff @foone @green_bens @Hcobb @nyrath Gulf War 1 overlapped with Mir (space station prior to the ISS) being in operation, Space Shutle missions, a whole bunch of comsats. EMPing low orbit would have caused international havoc and possibly killed astronauts/cosmonauts.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Walter van Holst (whvholst@eupolicy.social)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 01:43:31 JST Walter van Holst
  in reply to
  @MichaelPhillips @simonbp @_thegeoff @foone @cstross @green_bens @Hcobb @nyrath At the time of Gulf War I (or II, if you count the Iraq-Iran war as I) there were plenty of reconnaissance assets in orbit. Plus a lot of civilian earth observing (weather, agriculture etc). It was not at the dawn of the space age.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- MichaelPhillips (michaelphillips@dice.camp)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 01:43:33 JST MichaelPhillips
  in reply to
  @simonbp @_thegeoff @foone @whvholst @cstross @green_bens @Hcobb @nyrath
  Remember these plans came from before we had reliable ICBMs. There weren't a lot of spy satellites to be knocking out of orbit with your EMP at that point
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- Geoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (_thegeoff@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 01:43:35 JST Geoff 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿
  in reply to
  @foone @whvholst @cstross @green_bens @MichaelPhillips @Hcobb @nyrath I can't find a particularly reliable source, but there were stories around Gulf War 1 that a US General was pushing for Bush Snr to authorise a very high altitude nuke to disable (non-NATO shielding level?) communications without leading to huge amounts of fallout.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- simonbp (simonbp@social.linux.pizza)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 01:43:35 JST simonbp
  in reply to
  @_thegeoff @foone @whvholst @cstross @green_bens @MichaelPhillips @Hcobb @nyrath If so, USAF Space Command (what is now Space Force) would've shot that idea down real quick. The risk of damaging very expensive spy sats right before a war would absolutely not have been worth it.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
- MichaelPhillips (michaelphillips@dice.camp)'s status on Saturday, 16-Dec-2023 01:45:33 JST MichaelPhillips
  in reply to
  @cstross @whvholst @simonbp @_thegeoff @foone @green_bens @Hcobb @nyrath sure, but these aren't Gulf war projects. These are from the '50s.
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink

Feeds