Magnetic Space Launcher Ring

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
BTW, you mentioned an atomic hand grenade a few weeks ago and my search
for "Scientific American" + "nuclear grenade" led me to the Davy
Crockett - 51 pounds of W54 warhead and 10 tons yield.
Not a hand grenade, but damn close - and a terrorist's dream if any of
them got mislaid.

Before the end of the year, I'll have my new website up. It will include
updated pictures of the National Atomic Museum. One of the older pictures
was of the Davy Crockett, one of the most monumentally stupid weapons ever
developed. The blast radius exceeded the missile's range.

Now, if we would build some .5 to 2kt warheads like the ones used in
Starship Troopers...

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

In message , Pat Flannery
writes

This device is as far from mobile as you can get, and it's going to
be easy to see it getting built via reconsats...as well its huge
power supply (an nuclear powerplant?)


Like the Atomic Cannon, it's a better target than a weapon, and would
probably be #1 on your enemy's "things to be destroyed" list.


That's in the article. Could you get around that by building it
underground? You could even pump a vacuum in the tunnel, which would
at least reduce atmospheric heating until the missile was released.


That's supposed to be the idea as far as the vacuum goes.

OTOH, there's an interesting article in Scientific American on how
far-out projects (nuclear grenades was one example) get funded
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...eID=000197C 4
-DAF7-150E-98D783414B7F0000
You need to be a subscriber to read it online.


New fun blog: http://www.imaginaryweapons.com/

Pat

Scott Hedrick wrote:
One of the older pictures was of the Davy Crockett, one of the most
monumentally stupid weapons ever developed. The blast radius exceeded
the missile's range.

"A common myth is that with no shielding or protection from either blast
or radiation, a Davy Crockett crew would have been unlikely to survive
any engagement, also claiming that the blast area of the warhead was
greater than the range of the weapon. In fact, though the device could
be fired to a dangerously short range by an inept crew, the maximum
range of both versions is far longer than the distance at which
dangerous direct radiation, thermal, shockwave/blast, or debris are
likely to endanger the crew. At a range of as little as half of the
maximum range for the 120mm version (1 kilometer) no ill effects are likely.

"The warhead was tested on July 7, 1962 in the Little Feller II weapons
effects test shot, and again in an actual firing of the Davy Crockett
from distance of 1.7 miles (2.72 km) in the Little Feller I test shot on
July 17. This was the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada
Test Site."

--
Dave Michelson

In message , Scott Hedrick
writes

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
BTW, you mentioned an atomic hand grenade a few weeks ago and my search
for "Scientific American" + "nuclear grenade" led me to the Davy
Crockett - 51 pounds of W54 warhead and 10 tons yield.
Not a hand grenade, but damn close - and a terrorist's dream if any of
them got mislaid.

Before the end of the year, I'll have my new website up. It will include
updated pictures of the National Atomic Museum. One of the older pictures
was of the Davy Crockett, one of the most monumentally stupid weapons ever
developed. The blast radius exceeded the missile's range.

Now, if we would build some .5 to 2kt warheads like the ones used in
Starship Troopers...

Don't we - or rather you and the Russians - already have 2kt bombs such
as the one in the AIR-2 Genie? I can't find my copy of Starship Troopers
and can't remember what's special about their bombs.
But according to http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM
the Davy Crockett wasn't just tested but deployed in large numbers.

"Dave Michelson" wrote in message
news:t3IVg.102646$5R2.42805@pd7urf3no...
"A common myth is that with no shielding or protection from either blast
or radiation, a Davy Crockett crew would have been unlikely to survive any
engagement, also claiming that the blast area of the warhead was greater
than the range of the weapon.

That's what the numbers on the sign next to the weapon display said. I'd
post the picture, but the flash washed it out (and, of course, thanks to
9/11 I couldn't get back to the museum to take more pictures).

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , Scott Hedrick
writes

Now, if we would build some .5 to 2kt warheads like the ones used in
Starship Troopers...

Don't we - or rather you and the Russians - already have 2kt bombs such as
the one in the AIR-2 Genie? I can't find my copy of Starship Troopers and
can't remember what's special about their bombs.

They looked like fat RPGs with blinking lights- and flew about as well.

But according to http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM the
Davy Crockett wasn't just tested but deployed in large numbers.

Well, bring 'em back.

Jonathan Silverlight writes:

BTW, you mentioned an atomic hand grenade a few weeks ago and my
search for "Scientific American" + "nuclear grenade" led me to the
Davy Crockett - 51 pounds of W54 warhead and 10 tons yield. Not a
hand grenade, but damn close - and a terrorist's dream if any of
them got mislaid.

Was that the one that used U293 in PE?

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

Don't we - or rather you and the Russians - already have 2kt bombs
such as the one in the AIR-2 Genie? I can't find my copy of Starship
Troopers and can't remember what's special about their bombs.
But according to http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM
the Davy Crockett wasn't just tested but deployed in large numbers.

VERY large numbers- 2,100.

Pat

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:49:45 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

Don't we - or rather you and the Russians - already have 2kt bombs
such as the one in the AIR-2 Genie? I can't find my copy of Starship
Troopers and can't remember what's special about their bombs.
But according to http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM
the Davy Crockett wasn't just tested but deployed in large numbers.

VERY large numbers- 2,100.

....Yeah, but none of the damn things ever got sold as surplus in the
back pages of _Guns & Ammo_ :-(

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:29:33 -0400, Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote...

writes

Now, if we would build some .5 to 2kt warheads like the ones used in
Starship Troopers...

... I can't find my copy of Starship Troopers and
can't remember what's special about their bombs.

They looked like fat RPGs with blinking lights- and flew about as well.

That's from the (severely ****ed up)
Verwhoreven movie.

In the book the troops, wearing armor and
gear weighing over a ton and looking like
"big steel gorillas", had rocket launchers
in retractable mounts. So it sounds like
a current 75mm recoiless rifle might be
about the right scale, which really isn't
that far off from the "Davy Crockett"
stats if given a couple of centuries of
development. The nuclear rounds were
limited issue and our hero carried
only three. Technically... I'd say they
were only as far a stretch as the suits

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"