Basically, picture a cherry bomb under a really strong teacup that stayed in one piece during the explosion and shot up in the air, but scaled up a whole lot.
In: 0
I’m not 100% sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting this as a way of disarming nuclear weapons? Or as a way of blocking a nuclear blast?
Right now, we don’t really have the sorts of materials necessary on the scale required for what you’re thinking of. Making a funnel that would contain a nuclear explosion is beyond our current technological capabilities.
There was a plan for this — [project orion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)). It was scrapped for the obvious reason of excessive radiation contamination of the atmosphere and various treaties banning the detonation of nukes in the atmosphere.
The energy released is too large. Even if there was a material that could withstand such temperatures (which there aren’t), the “cup” would probably just get launched away.
The energy released is too large. Even if there was a material that could withstand such temperatures (which there aren’t), the “cup” would probably just get launched away.
They…er…they *technically* have done that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Propulsion_of_steel_plate_cap
Summarised briefly, during the heyday of nuclear testing they decided to detonate a nuclear explosion below ground with a steel cap on top of it. They underestimated the power involved however and this caused the steel cap to be blown off at ridiculous speeds and power.
As noted, this achieved much more than escape velocity. As also noted however, the steel cap was almost certainly vaporised through friction with the atmosphere.
But it’s a fun idea.
I know nothing about this but will still try to make sense of why we can’t:
1. we don’t have the resources. What exists to take the impact of a nuclear blast and not annihilate. But also even if we do have a system, energy is hard to control
2. again control. we are talking about controlling on earth what takes place in the stars, again possible, but difficult so who knows, a blast to the sun ends up hitting venus
3. expensive, not only the making of such a cup, which is probably around billions, but also the clean up of the radioactive aftermath which would be out in the open since the blast would need to be fairly open ended.
hence we are very “behind” in tech to build this, but this is probably the premise of intergalactic travel in the future. probably need a closed system that expends the energy in a ways thats not harmful, but again material is not known to sustain such an impact while being a launching ground.
Many people have already pointed you towards Project Orion which had a rocket pooping out small bombs who’s explosions then pushed on a springy pusher plate to give the rocket some pretty insane propulsion stats
From the same lab that designed Project Orion came the nuclear shaped charge which set off a nuke in a beryllium sphere with an open portion. In a vacuum almost all of the energy released by a nuke is in the form of x-rays and gamma rays, and the beryllium converts them into lower frequencies which then vaporize a tungsten plug over the opening and send it shooting out at high speeds as a plasma disk. Boosted efficiency for project Orion because it captures more of the energy
Then the Casaba Howitzer because apparently they were on a melon kick. Take that nuclear shaped charge and use a lighter metal that’s thinner and tapered a bit. Now your shape charge creates a much smaller much faster and narrower metal stream. Better for reaching out and touching someone in their no no square
The 1960s and the later Strategic Defense Initiative were just ***wild!***
Not only is the energy too large, a whole bunch of energy is released as electromagnetic energy. Detonating a nuke in the upper atmosphere has been researched as a way to create a widespread electromagnetic pulse which can be extremely damaging to electrical equipment.
Latest Answers