Operation Plumbbob Pascal-A Manhole

So in recent times, we have discovered the interstellar craft also, the spacecraft Voyager 1 that was found sailing through space. What about the lesser-known manhole cover from Operation Plumbbob Pascal-B test? I am sure with the right calculations, someone could see where it would be in the system.
Not know what I am talking about?



"Every kid who has put a firecracker under a tin can understands the principle of using high explosives to loft an object into space. What was novel to scientists at Los Alamos [the atomic laboratory in New Mexico] was the idea of using an atomic bomb as a propellant. That strategy was the serendipitous result of an experiment that had gone somewhat awry.
"Project Thunderwell was the inspiration of astrophysicist Bob Brownlee, who in the summer of 1957 was faced with the problem of containing underground an explosion, expected to be equivalent to a few hundred tons of dynamite. Brownlee put the bomb at the bottom of a 500-foot vertical tunnel in the Nevada desert, sealing the opening with a four-inch-thick steel plate weighing several hundred pounds. He knew the lid would be blown off; he didn't know exactly how fast. High-speed cameras caught the giant manhole cover as it began its unscheduled flight into history. Based upon his calculations and the evidence from the cameras, Brownlee estimated that the steel plate was travelling at a velocity six times that needed to escape Earth's gravity when it soared into the flawless blue Nevada sky. 'We never found it. It was gone,' Brownlee says, a touch of awe in his voice almost 35 years later.
"The following October the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, billed as the first man-made object in Earth orbit. Brownlee has never publicly challenged the Soviet's claim. But he has his doubts."

Just a thought.
 
"The following October the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, billed as the first man-made object in Earth orbit. Brownlee has never publicly challenged the Soviet's claim. But he has his doubts."

LOL
 
to launch a spacecraft on a column of nuclear-heated steam. The idea was that a deep shaft would be dug in the earth and filled with water. A spacecraft would be placed atop this shaft, and a nuclear explosive would be detonated at the bottom.
Uhm, no thanks!?! 🤯
 
Well, even if the muzzle velocity was initially six-times escape velocity, it wouldn't have retained that speed for long...spinning, possibly fragmented, manhole covers not being especially aerodynamic and all.

Probably landed a few states over.
 
Well, even if the muzzle velocity was initially six-times escape velocity, it wouldn't have retained that speed for long...spinning, possibly fragmented, manhole covers not being especially aerodynamic and all.

Probably landed a few states over.
It was mentioned that it could possibly have taken the bottle cap effect meaning that it would have taken an aerodynamic shape and would have certainly gone to or even through orbit. Would certainly not have landed on Earth again. So there is a possibility that there is a speeding manhole cover hurtling at incredible speeds through space.
War with Thargoids could have started as we put a manhole bullet through their planet?
 
Yeah, I remember hearing about this one on a few occasions. :) I suspect it was either vaporized or fragmented due to aerodynamic resistance. If it did somehow survive into space, it wouldn't be able to enter earth orbit on its own, as it would have an intersecting trajectory with the Earth, but interaction from the moon could compensate, though unlikely. If it didn't retain escape velocity after leaving the atmosphere, it would come back down after several days, or less. Assuming it still had escape velocity after exiting the atmosphere, the more likely scenario is that it would be on an Earth-crossing Solar orbit. If it were going fast enough, it would be a long period, highly eccentric orbit, and it could take a very long time to come back. :D
 
The problem with finding it, in real-life, is knowing exactly what direction it took off in. The trajectory extrapolated from its appearance in a single high-speed frame would be a rather broad cone in space; the actual velocity would be another guess entirely as it would indeed depend on how much of that velocity it lost travelling through the atmosphere. Added to all this, the object is quite small, dark, and not emitting any signals or radiation which we could detect.

Of course, on the basis of the current uncertainty, they could plonk it down anywhere in the generally correct direction, and could never be proven "wrong". But I would also point out that there are two other "ancient probes" - Piooneer 10 and Pioneer 11 - that aren't in ED yet either. Plus whatever other probes might be launched in the next hundred years or so.

Back on the subject of nuclear-weapon-based propulsion, Project Orion was an American concept study headed by Freeman Dyson that looked into the practicality of spaceships that used nuclear bombs for thrusters. On paper, it seemed to be the best way of using 20th century technology to quickly launch a large mass (hundreds of tonnes) into orbit or on an interplanetary or interstellar trajectory. The biggest engineering problem with launching a manned Orion was reducing the 100 G kick from a nuclear blast down to a human-tolerable 4 G. They only stopped work on the project when the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty prohibited atmospheric nuclear detonations (which an Orion would need to use quite a lot of). Anything that talks of using "nuclear pulse propulsion", such as the Daedalus proposal to reach Barnard's Star, is intended to work on a similar principle: detonating a nuclear device behind the ship, to push it forwards.

It's been used in science fiction too. In the Niven & Pournelle novel "Footfall", for example, the Human resistance secretly constructs an Orion-powered battleship to take down the alien occupier's mothership hovering in Earth orbit.
 
Project Orion sounds like pure insanity, but the science is sound. There are many problems with long-term human spaceflight that are difficult to solve using small, lightweight spacecraft, which are easily solved by building large. Some examples include radiation exposure (best solution is just to block it with a wall of lead, or maybe 10m thick water vessel surrounding the cabin, etc), and also microgravity. The latter is easily solved with rotating sections on the spacecraft, but in order to minimize coriolis effects that will cause dizziness and disorientation, the rotation radius needs to be quite large. (EDIT: Also, continuous thrust can serve to create artificial gravity as well)

When you start talking about city-sized spacecraft, you need propulsion that can handle these kinds of loads. Plus, you need high efficiency, more than can be attained with chemical rockets, to make the travel times manageable as well. And that means going nuclear.
 
When you start talking about city-sized spacecraft, you need propulsion that can handle these kinds of loads. Plus, you need high efficiency, more than can be attained with chemical rockets, to make the travel times manageable as well. And that means going nuclear.
A city-sized spacecraft continually setting off nukes beneath itself. Yep, seems fine.

The spacecraft would need to be able to withstand the force of multiple nuclear strikes beneath it. On top of that, it would need to create a sustainable habitable space for the occupants, and building such a space on the scale of a city is far beyond our current technological capabilities. In half a century or so, we might be able to do it, assuming we haven't started World War 3 and turned the Earth into radioactive molten slag.
 
I don't think that we'd be anywhere near building a spacecraft that large in just 50 years. Just think about the simple issues, like bringing enough material into space to even build it. The Falcon Heavy's payload to a geostationary transfer orbit is just shy of 27 tons.

Manhattan for instance has a mass of probably 150 million tons (it's been [estimated] to be 125 million without commodity items, furniture, electrical appliances etc.)

At 150 million tons, that would take over 5 million Falcon Heavy launches to bring up nothing but the building materials, the food and the people. Of course you need to assemble everything in space too, so you'll need even more stuff... uh.
 
We need to repeat the experiment, but this time put better tracking technology to work on the projectile. A Go-Fund-Me page is in order.
 
I don't think that we'd be anywhere near building a spacecraft that large in just 50 years. Just think about the simple issues, like bringing enough material into space to even build it.

We're not going to build spaceships that size with stuff we drag up from earth - we'll be mining asteroids for space based construction on that scale.
 
We're not going to build spaceships that size with stuff we drag up from earth - we'll be mining asteroids for space based construction on that scale.
The whatsit paradox: to get to other planets, we need a big spaceship, but the amounts of raw materials we need to build it are so big that we need to go to other planets to get them.

We can't build the ship to get to other planets because we can't get to other planets to build the ship.
 
The whatsit paradox: to get to other planets, we need a big spaceship, but the amounts of raw materials we need to build it are so big that we need to go to other planets to get them.

We can't build the ship to get to other planets because we can't get to other planets to build the ship.

Relatively small computer controlled engines that go to asteroids and push them into a useful place - L4 or L5 Earth-Moon Lagrange points say. If you've got time to move them slowly you could get a steady stream of them flowing in after some years without a massive input of fuel, and once you've got enough stuff to build more little asteroid shepherding ships there are gigatonnes of useful construction material basically for free from that point on.

The money and will to get the initial effort into space and started is the only thing we're really missing to start tomorrow.
 
Back
Top Bottom