USSR planned the nuclear blast on Moon also (the "E-3 project"). The main goal was to present the observable proof of Soviet probe reaching the Moon - Soviet leadership suspected that Western media may start to purposely dismiss the Soviet claims of space sucesses for propaganda reasons. The nuclear blast on the Moon was viewed as an efficient way to demostrate both the space and military capabilities of USSR.

The probe was designed and a model was build in 1958 (as engineers recalled, it looked like an old naval mine, with detonation sensors all around - so it would not require any precise stabilization). But doubts arise about the E-3 program:

* The first doubt was about safety - the only available launcher, the R-7 rocket, was not completely reliable. In case second, or third stage suffered a failure, the probe with nuclear bomb would fell somewhere on Earth. And what if it would fell on some Western country? The political and diplomatic consequences would be drastic.

* The second doubt was about the actual ability to observe the blast. Soviet scientists calculated the brightness on the blast in vacuum, and concluded that such a short flash most likely would not be noticed, and could be missed even if peoples would expect it. And since nobody was sure, how exactly Lunar surface is composed - nobody could say, would the resulting dust colud be observable from Earth.

So the E-3 project was soon abandoned by initiative of it's own author, Y.B. Zeldovich.
 
What about nuking a tunnel?


Quite a long mass driver would be possible..but I hear the Moon has a dense core after all:

Easier to use this as a base?

No rubble pile that…
 
Hi. A side note, though…

This original idea was discussed — if not implicitly by Jules Verne in his 1865 novel —, by a well known churchman, astronomer Abbé Théophile Moreux in a popular magazine article published in july 1918, a few months before the end of WWI.

Abbé Moreux [Théophile Moreux], "Peut-on bombarder la Lune ?," Lectures pour Tous, 15 juillet 1918

A.
Very interesting! Would you be able to post the text of Moreaux's lecture?
 
Tangential: "The man was a certifiable whackjob...."
Adult-onset psychosis ??

Although the main window for first full-blown schizophrenic episode seems mid- to late teens, which tends to ruin further education, some folk seem stricken in their late twenties.
A very clever 'Friend of Friend' flipped such, unto 'utterly bizarre': Wasn't psycho-actives, he just caught a 'Little Flu', woke up weird...
( This before 'Seasonal Flu' vaccinations were widely available but, given his 'My Body is a Temple' stance, he'd probably decline... )
Politely, we warned folk that he didn't have a 'Bee in his Bonnet', he had a ruddy hive...
We reckoned was likely an auto-immune thing, like 'Juvenile' Diabetes...

By analogy with Covid, there may have been microscopic neurological damage...
 
A tunnel through the Moon allows access to the core-that could be of value...a rail-gun the width of the Moon...imagine.
 
Might sound a little dumb.... But how do we know that there are materials we can use on the moon? Possibly iron deposits from asteroids. But i'm kind of unsure about that part.... Humans will always find a way i guess.
 
Might sound a little dumb.... But how do we know that there are materials we can use on the moon? Possibly iron deposits from asteroids. But i'm kind of unsure about that part.... Humans will always find a way i guess.
Because astronauts have been there and brought back soil samples.
 
Might sound a little dumb.... But how do we know that there are materials we can use on the moon? Possibly iron deposits from asteroids. But i'm kind of unsure about that part.... Humans will always find a way i guess.
Because astronauts have been there and brought back soil samples.
i understood that part.
But what was discussed above was deep into this particular celestial body.
The core. The mantle. Whatever else makes up the internals of the moon. We don't truly know yet, we can estimate. But we only know surface material as far as i'm aware
 
Might sound a little dumb.... But how do we know that there are materials we can use on the moon? Possibly iron deposits from asteroids. But i'm kind of unsure about that part.... Humans will always find a way i guess.
Because astronauts have been there and brought back soil samples.
i understood that part.
But what was discussed above was deep into this particular celestial body.
The core. The mantle. Whatever else makes up the internals of the moon. We don't truly know yet, we can estimate. But we only know surface material as far as i'm aware
Have we drilled into the core or mantel of the Earth? So wouldn't, "We don't truly know yet, we can estimate. But we only know surface material as far as i'm aware" also apply to the Earth by your rational?
 
Might sound a little dumb.... But how do we know that there are materials we can use on the moon? Possibly iron deposits from asteroids. But i'm kind of unsure about that part.... Humans will always find a way i guess.
Because astronauts have been there and brought back soil samples.
i understood that part.
But what was discussed above was deep into this particular celestial body.
The core. The mantle. Whatever else makes up the internals of the moon. We don't truly know yet, we can estimate. But we only know surface material as far as i'm aware
Have we drilled into the core or mantel of the Earth? So wouldn't, "We don't truly know yet, we can estimate. But we only know surface material as far as i'm aware" also apply to the Earth by your rational?
That's up for debate. Who is to say that the earth is made of the same material? or the same structure?
(near the center or deep below the surface crust for clarification)
 
Might sound a little dumb.... But how do we know that there are materials we can use on the moon? Possibly iron deposits from asteroids. But i'm kind of unsure about that part.... Humans will always find a way i guess.
Because astronauts have been there and brought back soil samples.
i understood that part.
But what was discussed above was deep into this particular celestial body.
The core. The mantle. Whatever else makes up the internals of the moon. We don't truly know yet, we can estimate. But we only know surface material as far as i'm aware
Have we drilled into the core or mantel of the Earth? So wouldn't, "We don't truly know yet, we can estimate. But we only know surface material as far as i'm aware" also apply to the Earth by your rational?
That's up for debate. Who is to say that the earth is made of the same material? or the same structure?
The scientists who say the moon was, literally, ripped from the Earth during a planetary-scale impact.

 
Might sound a little dumb.... But how do we know that there are materials we can use on the moon? Possibly iron deposits from asteroids. But i'm kind of unsure about that part.... Humans will always find a way i guess.
Because astronauts have been there and brought back soil samples.
i understood that part.
But what was discussed above was deep into this particular celestial body.
The core. The mantle. Whatever else makes up the internals of the moon. We don't truly know yet, we can estimate. But we only know surface material as far as i'm aware
Have we drilled into the core or mantel of the Earth? So wouldn't, "We don't truly know yet, we can estimate. But we only know surface material as far as i'm aware" also apply to the Earth by your rational?
That's up for debate. Who is to say that the earth is made of the same material? or the same structure?
The scientists who say the moon was, literally, ripped from the Earth during a planetary-scale impact.

I am fully aware of this theory and its high possibility.
i am not confirming or denying this theory, i understand that there is a large amount of evidence that points to it. But until we have 100% factual proof then it stays merely a very good theory. As many others.
 
Last edited:
I have to admit I'm impressed how faithfully you live up to your screen name. You really follow the standard conspiracy playbook to a T - sow doubt, neither confirm nor deny, carefully avoid to constructively offer any other theory that would better explain all the known evidence, etc.. So what exactly are those"many other" theories that you speak of, and to what degree are they compatible with known science???
 
That's up for debate. Who is to say that the earth is made of the same material? or the same structure?
The scientists who say the moon was, literally, ripped from the Earth during a planetary-scale impact.

I am fully aware of this theory and its high possibility.
i am not confirming or denying this theory, i understand that there is a large amount of evidence that points to it. But until we have 100% factual proof then it stays merely a very good theory. As many others.
for example :
we have the capture theory

and also the Fission theory as you have discussed :

another wild theory from the University of the Western Cape and VU University in Amsterdam states that there was a "Natural Nuclear Georeactor" called the "Fission Hypothesis" This idea is that the earth and moon both formed from a rapidly spinning blob of molten rock. This blob was spinning so rapidly that the force of gravity only just overcame the centrifugal forces. In this system, any slight kick would have ejected a small blob of molten rock into orbit. This blob eventually formed the Moon. Their idea is that centrifugal forces would have concentrated heavier elements such as uranium and thorium near the Earth’s surface on the equatorial plane. High concentrations of these radioactive elements can lead to nuclear chain reactions which can become supercritical if the concentrations are high enough. in short the theory relies on a very large natural detonation that launched a large piece of the earth into orbit.

all very good theories and cannot be ruled out.
 
Last edited:
Please define and back up your characterization of "very good theories" with scientific arguments. Good science is based on preponderance of evidence.
 
Please define and back up your characterization of "very good theories" with scientific arguments. Good science is based on preponderance of evidence.
when samples of the moons surface were returned there was an abundance of helium-3 and xenon -136, which would both have been produced in great quantities in a natural georeactor.
so there is evidence. But needs more examination.
 
listen i am not saying that you are all wrong. i am willing to accept any idea.
i am merely stating that there is no 100% proven theory regarding this idea.
 
Please define and back up your characterization of "very good theories" with scientific arguments. Good science is based on preponderance of evidence.
when samples of the moons surface were returned there was an abundance of helium-3 and xenon -136, which would both have been produced in great quantities in a natural georeactor.
so there is evidence. But needs more examination.
You also appear to be conflating different theories of the Moon's formation with different theories on the Moon's composition. Which *specific* theory can you point to that postulates that the inner composition of Moon is fundamentally different from that of the Earth, please?
 
Last edited:
Please define and back up your characterization of "very good theories" with scientific arguments. Good science is based on preponderance of evidence.
when samples of the moons surface were returned there was an abundance of helium-3 and xenon -136, which would both have been produced in great quantities in a natural georeactor.
so there is evidence. But needs more examination.
You also appear to be conflating different theories of the Moon's formation with different theories on the Moon's composition. Which *specific* theory can you point to that postulates that the inner composition of Moon is fundamentally different from that of the Earth, please?
The impact theory states that a foreign object roughly the size of Mars impacted the earth and it's left over pieces and some smaller pieces of earth possibly formed a ring of foreign material around the earth hereby forming the Moon. Said foreign object could have had a different geological makeup than the Earth did.

Now if you would like to discuss this further I would gladly either move this topic somewhere more appropriate or discuss this one on one.
Due to the fact of us filling up this thread with information that does not regard the title.
 
No, I'm perfectly good with not continuing to indulge in idle speculation what could be without being presented with even a shred of concrete scientific *evidence* to back it up.
 
I would think there would be less resistance to digging a deep tunnel--maybe right through the Moon---on Earth this would not be doable----but to get iron out of the lunar core---just build hoops for mass-drivers and to hold the tunnel open.
 
I would think there would be less resistance to digging a deep tunnel--maybe right through the Moon---on Earth this would not be doable----but to get iron out of the lunar core---just build hoops for mass-drivers and to hold the tunnel open.
Ironically, one of the easiest ways to blast such a tunnel would be a nuke or three. Project Orion demonstrated that you could make a nuclear shaped charge, and that the lighter the materials used in the liner, the narrower the beam. Use something like Tungsten, get a 22deg cone. Use something like beryllium, and you get a much tighter cone, under a degree.
 
I would think it would take 300 nukes…

I’d like to have a power plant…and use something like Petra’s boring machine,

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom