has anyone tested nuclear weapons in space. i would like to see what the explosion looks like.?
357555
No, it would violate several treaties.  Here is the main one:\nhttp://www.islandone.org/Treaties/BH454.html
583746
Nuclear testing is experimentation with nuclear weapons. Throughout the twentieth century, most nations which have developed nuclear weapons have staged tests of them. Testing nuclear weapons can yield information about how the weapons work (known as "weapons related" testing), as well as how the weapons behave under various conditions and how structures behave when subjected to nuclear explosions ("known as "weapons effects" testing). Additionally, nuclear testing has often been used as an indicator of scientific and military strength and many tests have been overtly political in their intention, and most nuclear weapons states publicly declared their nuclear status by means of a nuclear test.\n\nNuclear weapons tests are generally classified as being either "atmospheric" (in or above the atmosphere), "underground". or "underwater". Of these, underground testing contained in deep shafts poses the least health risk in terms of fallout. \nThe first atomic test was detonated by the United States at the Trinity site on July 16, 1945, with a yield approximately equivalent to 20 kilotons. The first hydrogen bomb, codenamed "Mike", was tested at the Enewetak atoll in the Marshall Islands on November 1, 1952, also by the United States. The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was the "Tsar Bomba" of the Soviet Union at Novaya Zemlya, with an estimated yield of around 50 megatons.
231655
Have you checked Space.com?
507629
Yes I believe it is true.  The extreme heat generated by the initial detonation was sufficient to vaporise organic matter such as people.  A prompt blast wave accompanying this immense 'fireball' would typically blast down most structures.  However, I did hear rumours that at the point of vaporisation these vapours were absorbed into walls, etc.. This would give the impression of a 'shadow' effect when really its not a shadow.. its vaporised people / organic matter.  \n\nSuch a topic is a little sensative (clearly) so be careful where you ask on this one.  The effective range at which this would happen is in close proximity to ground zero.  Beyond this people would combust due to the heat before being blasted by the shockwave (which can flatten buildings).  Outside this I heard reports of peoples eyes melting out of their sockets which makes sense due to the soft tissue nature of them.\n\nOf cause theres also the radioactive fallout which is pretty nasty in the way of being a big time carcinogen.\n\nAll in all Nuclear bombs aint so pretty.  You might also like to look into the neutron bomb which I think was a varient of the typical fission bomb.  I believe it was designed to maximise casualties and minimise structural damage to buildings but I'm not sure..
868933
NASA experiment a lot on this issue, maybe by login onto their site you'll find the info you're lookig for, luck..☺
710318
Multiple NASA web sites have the info that you seek.\nGood luck with your project and let me know how it turns out?
989890
North Korea does not have ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in the US -- yet!!!  Plans to test the first such missile appear to be in go-ahead stage, but until a successful test launch and subsequent successful test launches, they will not have demonstrated a reliable long range missile system.  We also have no credible evidence that North Korea has produced a weapon capable of being mounted on the missile.  We also cannot confirm that North Korea even has any nuclear weapons at all, although we know they have sufficient plutonium for several devices and we suspect they have built several devices.\n\nKim Jong Il postures in a risky game of brinkmanship by permitting this test prep to proceed.  The missile was fueled Sunday, June 18, which is usually an indicator that the launch will go forth.  (Removing fuel is a hazardous procedure, so fueling usually means a go-ahead status.)\n\nIf the test proceeds, it will be Korea's first launch attempt of a long range missile since its unsuccessful 1998 launch of a missile over Japan.  That missile's third stage failed to engage and the missile broke up and fell into the Pacific.  Analysts fear Korea has improved the missile design since then.\n\nIf there is a launch and it is successful, we will enter a new era, and we'll see nuclear brinkmanship not seen since the Cuban missile crisis.\n\nComparisons of Korea and Iraq are not valid, and solutions will vastly differ.  \n\nIn the post-USSR era, the US stands more likely to be targeted with a nuclear weapon or weapons by terrorist organizations.  Such stateless organizations have the ambition to make such attacks, and are unhampered by any fears of retaliation, as there would be no nation-state against whcih to retaliate.\n\nNorth Korea's Kim Jong Il is fettered by his nation, and is well aware of the stakes.  \n\nI suppose, in my weary last words here tonight, I'd say that I don't think that Kim Jong Il will launch a nuclear weapon against the US because our response will not be a tactical air and ground campaign.  It will be a nuclear response.\n\nI'd like to write more, but it's late and I'm tired.  I hope what I did write makes sense and is at least somewhat informative.  I don't pretend to know how this will all play out in the coming months and years.\n\nI'm sorry to be seeing the situation develop, but that seems to be the theme of the post 9-11 world as I know it.
1000020
As with any thermonuclear explosion, you obtain a huge amount of radiated energy in a very small location in a very small amount of time.  This radiated energy would be absorbed by the surrounding ocean water very quickly.  This would cause a HUGE amount of water around the detonation site to flash-boil and expand rapidly.  This would create a propagating hydrostatic shock wave that would be felt all throughout the Pacific, mostly in the form of tidal waves.  These tidal waves will likely be fairly small, however depending upon the composition of the ocean floor, it may also let loose alot of rock and cause some underwater avalanches (another common source of tidal waves, esp. the bigger ones).\n\nDepending upon the depth of the detonation, very few of the radiated photons may actually reach the surface, and thus almost all of the energy will be consumed by water.  Besides no "blinding flash", this would also mean that the visible "water explosion" made up of mostly vapor would be larger than the equivalent land- or airburst vapor cloud.  If close enough to the surface, the flash-boiled water would quickly rise and break the surface with a large gaseous explosion, and the vapor would climb into the air and spread once it achieves altitude, so yes the "mushroom cloud" will still form.  If it were very deep, though, the gasses would eventually spread and, to some extent, dissipate, resulting in just a lot of surface turbulence and foamed gasses.\n\nDo some research on "Operation Crossroads", which were two U.S. nuclear detonation tests in 1946.  ABLE was an airburst at 158m, and BAKER was 27m underwater (yes, super-shallow, but it gives you a fair starting point).  There have been other underwater nuclear test detonations by various countries, but their speifics escape my memory at the moment.  :p
493742
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/bomb.html\nhttp://hydrogen.kiwiki.homeip.net/\nhttp://whyfiles.org/186ed_teller/3.html
515903
There are nuclear physicists working for NASA.  NASA has a program called Prometheus to design and build nuclear powered propulsion systems.
931473
I have this very object. My foolish neighbor calls it an air humidifier, like he knows anything, ( he thinks we landed on the moon, I know crazy)\n     You can borrow it, but you have to come at night. My house is the one covered in tin foil and cloaked in the star trek special edition invisibility shield, with extra force field protons.
1066803
It would be a perfect opportunity for the Pentagon to test its new missile defensive system but they are face with some problems.  First, intelligence is not certain if this missile test is a actual warhead or a satelite that is intented to go to space.  Back in 1998 when North Korean launched its missile, it was a satellite that failed to reach space.  They are trying to launch a satellite because they think the U.S. is monopolizing space and is threatening an arms race in space.  Second, the missile defense system, first envisioned by Raegan, has some flaws.  The defensive system might miss its target and hit neighboring countrys.  I doubt the U.S. will be forced to use the missile defensive system because I think North korea will eventually back off because of internation pressure but it would be nice to see tax payers money at work.  STAR WARS!
121876
Plasma, that's how you get nuclear reaction!
1018471
Well, some would say we're already there.  Any military spacecraft will be around for awhile  before we hear about it. The "aurora" project is said by many to be a military project to develope a hypersonic air/space craft.  Some evidence exists to support the theory. \n  In areas around the groom lake test facility. (area 51) and edwards air force base there've been photos crop up of telltale Contrail, or exhaust patterns. These support the existance of a "pulse" pattern propulsion craft.  There've been reports from seismologist about unexplained readings of a mobile phenomenon identical to those recieved from a space shuttle re-entry. The shuttle. gives off a distinct mobile vibration, detectable by geological instruments.  There've been reports that  coincide with these conrails of seismic anomolies identical to that of a shuttle.  \n\n  Makes you wonder.....;.
1721
If you start a fire in zero gravity then (as long as it is not against the wall of the space craft) it will burn as a sphere.  The fire needs oxygen so will expand, however, as it expands more heat is lost, and the fire may go out.\n\nSo it would be a hot, glowing sphere that expands and then goes out.\n\nOf course if it is contact with the wall or something then the nature of the fire depend on the fuels available, etc.
78131
Right now there isn't much. The idea of nuclear power for spacecraft isn't too attractive, given the radiation, fallout, and potential mess after an accident. \n\nThe old chemical rockets have experienced an upgrade recently, thanks to the Russian technology of the closed cycle motor. The energy used to run the pumps used to be jettisoned outside the motor bell, but the Russians needed that extra bit of power for their N1 moon ship, and designed the NK33 closed cycle motor. Thankfully, some of the motors survived the cold war, and ended up in the hands of researchers who used them to construct the closed cycle motors that power the Atlas 5. The New Horizons spacecraft rode out on the Atlas 5, which was the fastest launch in history. The Apollo ships took three days to cover the distance between Earth and Moon; New Horizons did it in 9 hours. That's an improvement.
7169
You could make a cloud chamber. It's a chamber that's saturated with alcohol vapor so when a cosmic ray or radioactive particle enters the chamber it leaves a trail of mist like when a plane leaves a vapor trail. It does use dry ice and isopropyl alcohol though. It's kind of complicated but would be worth it in the end. You might even win depending on the competition.