Talk:Project A119

Context

It might be useful to revise the article at some point. Firstly the US was not the only country to consider this concept. The Soviet Union had something called Project E-4 which actually got to the mock-up stage before it was canceled.

Secondly the idea of having the first (unmanned) spacecraft to the moon leave an obvious sign of its arrival appears in early science fiction, the versions I have seen feature impact probes loaded with white paint or magnesium flash powder.Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Rumors of soviets bombing the moon began as early as 1957, as confirmed by this article (that also contains many details now related to Project A119, such as the explosion on the dark side). --viniciusmc 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Gary Latham Proposal

The Post-Apollo 11 proposal to detonate a nuclear device on the moon looks to be a further area for research. For one thing, this is clearly the inspiration for Malzbergs, The Falling Astronauts which features an Apollo mission to carry out just this experiment.Graham1973 (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal was pretty widely reported at the time (Google News is full of the stuff) but there's nothing really in the reports beyond what's mentioned here. Latham has a few books on lunar seismology though, which might provide something. GRAPPLE X 17:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I found something, but it's in a very dubious source, Secrets of our spaceship Moon (Found on Google Books) by a certain Don Wilson mentions the Latham proposal and states that it was for a farside blast. The problem is I cannot look inside to get a proper cite or even to find the authors sources.Graham1973 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Project A119/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk • contribs • count) 00:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Review in progress.AstroCog (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Nice article overall. Does what it needs to do.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Good writing overall. Prose gets to the point.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Plenty of reliable references, well cited.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No problems here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems fairly stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   It's got images. Not sure what other images could improve the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This one was pretty easy. After reading

Archive: Non-nuclear explosives in lunar science

An illustration of the LCROSS Centaur(spent rocket third stage) and shepherding spacecraft as they approach impact with the lunar south pole on October 9, 2009. The Centaur impact was expected to excavate more than 350 metric tons (390 short tons) of lunar material and create a crater about 20 m (65 ft) in diameter to a depth of about 4 m (13 ft). The Shepherding Spacecraft impact was projected to excavate an estimated 150 metric tons (170 short tons) and create a crater 14 m (46 ft) in diameter to a depth of about 2 m (6 ft). Most of the material in the Centaur debris plume was expected to remain at (lunar) altitudes below 10 km (6 mi). However the excavation plume was not visible.

The faint flash from the LCROSS Centaur impact. It was hoped that spectral analysis of the resulting impact plume would help to confirm preliminary findings by the Clementine and Lunar Prospector which hinted that there may be water ice in the permanently shadowed regions on the moon. Mission scientists expected that the Centaur impact plume would be visible through amateur-class telescopes with apertures as small as 25 to 30 cm (10 to 12 inches). But no plume was observed by such amateur telescopes. Both impacts were also monitored by Earth-based observatories and by orbital assets, such as the Hubble Space Telescope.

A vacuum stable Chemical explosive filled the thumper mortar ammunition canisters used as part of the Apollo Lunar Active Seismic Experiments. These explosive experiments investigated the composition of the Lunar mantle during the Apollo Program, analogous to the exploration geophysics practice of mineral prospecting with chemical explosives in "deep seismic sounding" reflection seismology.

The scientific objectives of Project A119, which as Apollo scientist Gary Latham explained, would have been the detonating of a "smallish" nuclear device(1700+ tons of TNT) on the Moon in order to facilitate research into its geologic make-up. Were attempted to be found by using the comparatively, much lower yield, explosion created by the water prospecting (LCROSS)Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite mission, which launched in 2009 and released the "Centaur" kinetic energy impactor, an impactor with a mass of 2,305 kg (5,081 lb), and an impact velocity of about 9,000 km/h (5,600 mph), releasing the kinetic energy equivalent of detonating approximately 2 tons of TNT (8.86 GJ). Whether or not LCROSS would find water had been stated to be influential in whether or not the United States government pursues creating a Moon base. On November 13, 2009, NASA confirmed that water was detected after the Centaur impacted the crater. The LCROSS "Centaur" kinetic energy impactor was however underpowered and therefore only partially successful, having not produced the plume height that was predicted. Leaving the true composition of the lunar subsoil, as an unknown.

I've moved this section to the talk page. Section needs re-writing as I do not think it was first written in English. Also the description of A119 in the section contradicts the description in the article.Graham1973 (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(1) If you feel unable to read this section, then by all means, take a stab at writing it yourself.

(2)What contradiction are you talking about? You mean, Gary Latham's explanation? He is correct, science was one of the objectives of the project. Indeed, if you read the primary sources, Sagan worked, in 1958, on the paper Possible Contribution of Lunar Nuclear Weapons Detonations to the Solution of Some Problems in Planetary Astronomy.

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit request

A see also section to Aristarchus (crater) should be included, as a natural source of radioactive decay gas products on the moon already exists. Also, a see also to Giordano Bruno (crater), Transient lunar phenomenon and in the last section on explosions in lunar science, well some info on natural meteor impacts being visible from the earth wouldn't go amiss. like the earth visible ~ 15 tons of TNT energy impact last year, september 2013, linked below and the less energetic event in March 2013 ~ 5 tons of TNT. See more lunar craters.

• http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/19/mnras.stu083.full
• 2 videos & quote "This is the largest, brightest impact we have ever observed on the Moon," Professor Jose Madiedo, of the University of Huelva in south-western Spain" ->
• March 2013 event http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/350370
• Sept 11 2013 event http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/bright-explosion-on-the-moon-2/ & http://rt.com/news/biggest-meteor-impact-moon-549/
• No doubt there will be plenty more!
• All these events makes one wonder how - under a scenario that a nation secretly flew a nuclear warhead into the moon and didn't declare it, how would the rest of the world be able to tell for sure it was a deliberate event and not just a typical meteoroid impact? As far as I know, there'd be no double flash of light that we use on earth as the identifying characteristic of a nuclear explosion in our atmosphere, as there is practically zero atmosphere on the moon for the double flash mechanism to form.
• So how would we discriminate from the two events? There's also no system of seismic stations(CTBTO) on the moon like we have on earth to detect underground nuclear detonations either.

86.46.175.111 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Searching for source

I'm looking for a source from when the entry article was new to Wikipedia. The source discussed the unpresidented addition of a WP article that was supported only by primary sources. Thanks in advance. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Project A119. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916051640/http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/SpaceAge/index.html to http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/SpaceAge/index.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66BhosrQk?url=http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm to http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

nuke-finding-128

we must find a nuke to drop on the US 82.7.134.74 (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)