I concede the Daily Mail/AP headline about "blowing up" the Moon is sensationalist even by my standards, but I think it noteworthy that both Americas scientists AND military quickly discarded Sagans idea because it was incredibly dangerous AND impractical. Taken with Sagans suggestion we "terraform" Mars by expending the entire global nuclear arsenal on it to raise its temperature and release subsurface oxygen (which Mars would still lack the gravity to retain) I cannot help feeling like "nuke it till it glows" was his solution to every problem (it goes without saying that such an extraordinary solution requires extraordinary evidence.)
Revealed: How the U.S. planned to blow up the MOON with a nuclear bomb to win Cold War bragging rights over Soviet Union
Scientists were hoping for giant flash on the moon that would intimidate the Soviet Union
Aim of mission was to launch the nuke by 1959
Plan was later scrapped due to possible danger to people on Earth
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER and ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED: 19:06 GMT, 25 November 2012 | UPDATED: 22:37 GMT, 25 November 2012
It may sound like a plot straight out of a science fiction novel, but a U.S. mission to blow up the moon with a nuke was very real in the 1950s.
At the height of the space race, the U.S. considered detonating an atom bomb on the moon as a display of America's Cold War muscle.
The secret project, innocuously titled 'A Study of Lunar Research Flights' and nicknamed 'Project A119,' was never carried out.
However, its planning included calculations by astronomer Carl Sagan, then a young graduate student, of the behavior of dust and gas generated by the blast.
Viewing the nuclear flash from Earth might have intimidated the Soviet Union and boosted U.S. confidence after the launch of Sputnik, physicist Leonard Reiffel told the AP in a 2000 interview.
Reiffel, now 85, directed the inquiry at the former Armour Research Foundation, now part of the Illinois Institute of Technology. He later served as a deputy director at NASA.
Sagan, who later became renowned for popularizing science on television, died in 1996.
The author of one of Sagan's biographies suggested that he may have committed a security breach in 1959 after revealing the classified project in an academic fellowship application. Reiffel concurred.
Under the scenario, a missile carrying a small nuclear device was to be launched from an undisclosed location and travel 238,000 miles to the moon, where it would be detonated upon impact.
The planners decided it would have to be an atom bomb because a hydrogen bomb would have been too heavy for the missile.
Reiffel said the nation’s young space program probably could have carried out the mission by 1959, when the Air Force deployed inter-continental ballistic missiles.
Military officials apparently abandoned the idea because of the danger to people on Earth in case the mission failed.
The scientists also registered concerns about contaminating the moon with radioactive material, Reiffel said.
When contacted by the AP, the U.S. Air Force declined to comment on the project.
I consider it revealing that the US MILITARY objected on the grounds of danger to human life, while the scientific communitys only concern was contaminating the lifeless lunar surface. That kind of inverts the popular view of scientists as noble idealists who alone stand between soullessly homocidal generals and murderous abuse of technology.
Note: Those responding to this thread (if any) may rest assured I will read their replies, but since I am doing construction work about 60 hours/week now, my own replies will brief, intermittent and (most likely) disjointed (more so than usual, I mean. 
)
)
"I mean, if everyone had a soul, there would be no contrast by which we could appreciate it. For giving us this perspective, we thank you." - Nate
Carl Sagan Advised US Defense Department to Win the Space Race by Nuking the Moon
- 02/12/2012 05:04:40 PM
733 Views
Way to jump the shark, Carl. *NM*
- 02/12/2012 06:48:30 PM
167 Views
Mars can retain Oxygen just fine, and this isn't exactly new
- 03/12/2012 12:25:14 AM
391 Views
It does not seem to be doing a very good job of it; Mars' atmosphere is ~0.1% O2.
- 06/12/2012 12:16:16 AM
449 Views
There's a difference between retaining added and not having any
- 06/12/2012 01:44:56 AM
355 Views
Not practically.
- 07/12/2012 02:27:02 AM
970 Views
Yes, practically... I wouldn't mind you lecturing me on my own field if you got the stuff right
- 07/12/2012 04:19:29 AM
480 Views
Am I missing something?
- 03/12/2012 08:18:25 PM
505 Views
Perhaps Sagans subsequent suggestion we nuke Mars to make it habitable.
- 05/12/2012 11:00:08 PM
470 Views
Re: Journalists
- 05/12/2012 11:27:10 PM
490 Views
I am crediting professional writers with too much writing skill? 
- 06/12/2012 12:24:49 AM
478 Views
- 06/12/2012 12:24:49 AM
478 Views
I agree with Nate, lots of Journalists are very lazy and the science writers tend to be the worst
- 06/12/2012 01:55:16 AM
364 Views
I must have missed the part where Sagan advised them to nuke the moon to win.
- 04/12/2012 05:47:36 PM
409 Views
