This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
...is horrendously written. Here's what it says:
Clearly it isn't written correctly. I was going to delete it because I couldn't figure out what it's actually saying, but I just wanted to give you guys the heads up so maybe you could fill in. 162.84.165.244 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I was not able to find information about any other nation testing nuclear weapons in space. However, I am not certain this is true. Anyone know different? aa v ^ 15:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
For a map of that Russian space explosion test effects see also: [1] 172.201.57.99 14:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what sort of long term damage to the ozone layer has all of this testing caused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.227.5 ( talk • contribs)
I would refer the reader to "UNITED STATES HIGH-ALTITUDE TEST EXPERIENCES A Review Emphasizing the Impact on the Environment" (Chapter X) by Herman Hoerlin https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/docs1/00322994.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.155.226 ( talk) 12:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The image used on Supernova (of Kepler's supernova) looks strikingly like some of the nuclear explosions (such as the bluegill III shot). Is this because of some dynamic of vacuum- (or low-gravity) explosions? That is, is it superficial, or is there some structure to the phenomenon? ... aa: talk 18:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
well, the phenomenas are not unrelated. both are produced due to high amplitude, high frequency radiation heating up low density gas formations.
There is some important information missing about Hane events. In no particular order (from my memories reading some article about it in scientific american. I think the guy who wrote it was daniel Dupont, quite famous author):
Please reference this discussion and post responses there. Squideshi 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a very big flash of light in Siberia near Iekaterinburg on Nov 14, 2014. It was recorded on two separate video footages (at least). There were articles on the international press. It was seen as a meteoritical event and quickly forgotten. However, no meteorite was to fall on Earth that day. The Russian military said it was an on ground event, an explosion in a warehouse. But there was no earthquake, no sound, no shockwave. The CTBTO confirmed to me (I called their PR division) there was nothing recorded by their receptors on that day in the area (they would have told me if they had, because I claimed to them there was a nuclear test in space and such a finding would have disqualified my claims). The CTBTO has no proper mean of watching for HANEs. They do not have satellites, they rely on the US military for that (bilateral agreement). I have doubts on the full aptitude of the US network post Cold War to watch for HANEs ( budgetary cuts were planned by the Air Force regarding SABRS, Space Atmospheric Burst Reporting System). There was a missile defence conference planned 3 days after the event in the same city of Iekaterinburg, by the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the "Russian NATO". The point of the event was probably a test of ICBM interception with a nuclear warhead, in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. Why would have Russia explicitely lied (since the hypothetical on ground explosion did not cause any sound or earthquake) if it wasn't to hide something they did ? Note that the test did not cause an EMP because it happened at night. There is no ionosphere except at very high altitudes by night so it is possible to make a "stealth" HANE by detonating it not too high.-- FlorentPirot ( talk) 11:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I made a baby intro. Please help. Add appropriate info so that we're not diving straight into EMP & nanoseconds. nuclear weapons testing is well-written & has a legit intro that gives needed context before it starts dropping hard-core science on the reader. Plenty of other articles around this topic are already probably well-formed. Not sure why this one's an outlier when it comes to giving orbust context in the intro. A good intro will help define the purpose & scope of the article. thanks. skak E L 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
...is horrendously written. Here's what it says:
Clearly it isn't written correctly. I was going to delete it because I couldn't figure out what it's actually saying, but I just wanted to give you guys the heads up so maybe you could fill in. 162.84.165.244 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I was not able to find information about any other nation testing nuclear weapons in space. However, I am not certain this is true. Anyone know different? aa v ^ 15:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
For a map of that Russian space explosion test effects see also: [1] 172.201.57.99 14:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what sort of long term damage to the ozone layer has all of this testing caused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.227.5 ( talk • contribs)
I would refer the reader to "UNITED STATES HIGH-ALTITUDE TEST EXPERIENCES A Review Emphasizing the Impact on the Environment" (Chapter X) by Herman Hoerlin https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/docs1/00322994.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.155.226 ( talk) 12:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The image used on Supernova (of Kepler's supernova) looks strikingly like some of the nuclear explosions (such as the bluegill III shot). Is this because of some dynamic of vacuum- (or low-gravity) explosions? That is, is it superficial, or is there some structure to the phenomenon? ... aa: talk 18:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
well, the phenomenas are not unrelated. both are produced due to high amplitude, high frequency radiation heating up low density gas formations.
There is some important information missing about Hane events. In no particular order (from my memories reading some article about it in scientific american. I think the guy who wrote it was daniel Dupont, quite famous author):
Please reference this discussion and post responses there. Squideshi 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a very big flash of light in Siberia near Iekaterinburg on Nov 14, 2014. It was recorded on two separate video footages (at least). There were articles on the international press. It was seen as a meteoritical event and quickly forgotten. However, no meteorite was to fall on Earth that day. The Russian military said it was an on ground event, an explosion in a warehouse. But there was no earthquake, no sound, no shockwave. The CTBTO confirmed to me (I called their PR division) there was nothing recorded by their receptors on that day in the area (they would have told me if they had, because I claimed to them there was a nuclear test in space and such a finding would have disqualified my claims). The CTBTO has no proper mean of watching for HANEs. They do not have satellites, they rely on the US military for that (bilateral agreement). I have doubts on the full aptitude of the US network post Cold War to watch for HANEs ( budgetary cuts were planned by the Air Force regarding SABRS, Space Atmospheric Burst Reporting System). There was a missile defence conference planned 3 days after the event in the same city of Iekaterinburg, by the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, the "Russian NATO". The point of the event was probably a test of ICBM interception with a nuclear warhead, in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. Why would have Russia explicitely lied (since the hypothetical on ground explosion did not cause any sound or earthquake) if it wasn't to hide something they did ? Note that the test did not cause an EMP because it happened at night. There is no ionosphere except at very high altitudes by night so it is possible to make a "stealth" HANE by detonating it not too high.-- FlorentPirot ( talk) 11:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I made a baby intro. Please help. Add appropriate info so that we're not diving straight into EMP & nanoseconds. nuclear weapons testing is well-written & has a legit intro that gives needed context before it starts dropping hard-core science on the reader. Plenty of other articles around this topic are already probably well-formed. Not sure why this one's an outlier when it comes to giving orbust context in the intro. A good intro will help define the purpose & scope of the article. thanks. skak E L 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)