Talk:Project Pluto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Once powered up, the unshielded half-gigawatt nuclear reactor would emit highly lethal radiation in a large radius; such a vehicle could not possibly be human-piloted or reused. Indeed, some questioned whether a cruise missile derived from Project Pluto would need a warhead at all; the radiation from its engine, coupled with the shock wave that would be produced by flying at Mach 3 at treetop level, would have left a wide path of destruction wherever it went. Contrary to some reports, the exhaust of the engine would not itself be highly radioactive. Also, the nuclear engine could in principle operate for months, so a Pluto cruise missile could simply fly a long and winding pattern over enemy territory to cause incredible damage.

this is very confusing and needs to be cleared up - if the engine's exhaust did indeed not contain any radioactive particulates, then it needs to be explained that the radiation emitted was purely gamma radiation. This was not my understanding though; I thought that the engine had radioactive components which ablated into the exhaust gasses... -Lommer 01:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I doubt it would have been left to fly around for a long period, even in those days.
It says "in principle", not "in practice." At supersonic speeds you'd just need it to fly for a few days to cover a tremendous area. Bryan 06:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
"In principle" relates to the engine running. I think the aircraft would have been shot down. It doesn't seem a particularly useful statement. It isn't a militarily credible plan or attack. What did find an echo in an SF story was that if the thing is launched, since in principle the reactor will run for a long time, it could be left flying round a parking orbit somewhere if the situation no longer justified pressing home the attack, in case it later did. Midgley 15:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I hate to ask this, but that SF story didn't involve zombie hookers, wouldn't it? I believe that the short story Ed Lee's Grub Girl had something very similar to Project Pluto which is responsible for the zombies. I hadn't heard about Pluto until years after reading it, and the plan sounded outlandish then and after I read more on the Flying Crowbar. --YoungFreud 07:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danger zone from radiation?

You would not stand next to it when it was running, but is it really such a strong emitter that as it flies past at supersonic speed it kills people with radiation?

Like neutron bombs, I question whether the radiation would severely affect anyone who was not damaged worse by the shock wave.

This is without considering the actual energies and radius involved, becuase I have neither figures nor the right mathematics for it, but it seems likely that being say 700 m from it would not be unduly hazardous. In order to deliver 400 REM to someone standing within 700m it would need to deliver that dose to them within 2 seconds or less (sound is 700m/s isn't it?). It may be worth doing the actual sums on that.Midgley 15:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is where my understanding of the issue disagrees with the article; I was under the impression that the exhaust from the missile was radioactive (due to problems with ablative shielding). If that were the case, than a form of nuclear fallout would effectively be left behind wherever the missile flew, and would indeed contaminate areas for some time to come. But if I'm mistaken, then I'd agree with you and I can't see how the missile could cause a lot of damage... -User:Lommer | talk 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

This is really nice that so much work was put into this article. It really gives the subject some depth on the Wiki. I linked Supersonic Low Altitude Missile to this one, and delisted P.P. from the [[Category:Cruise missiles]], as it was just the engine, and not the missile itself. Maybe we should have a [[Category:Tactical aeronautical powerplants]], or something. –– Clarknova 18:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

"Since nuclear power gave it almost unlimited range, the missile could cruise in circles over the ocean until ordered "down to the deck" for its supersonic dash to targets in the Soviet Union." - Wikipedia article.

"Since nuclear power gave it almost unlimited range, the missile could cruise in circles over the ocean until ordered "down to the deck" for its supersonic dash to targets in the Soviet Union." - Gregg Herken article.

This entry just seems to be bits and pieces strung together from the Herken article. There are many more instances of the entry using directly copied lines from the article.

Omegashade 03:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not surprising considering I copied the initial article verbatim from [1], and according to [2] "Information presented on these pages are considered public information and may be distributed or copied." Do you know if Herken is the original author, or did he copy this source too? Bryan 03:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EProject_Pluto_2bb0.html"