Talk:Starfish Prime

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yield[edit]

Official source (1965 report cited in footnote 6) clearly states that the yield of the W-49 device was 1.15 megatons, not 1.4 as stated elsewhere on main page. 71.224.44.133 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no info on deaths caused by fallout[edit]

no info on deaths caused by fallout 

- why  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.130.142.29 (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reentry Vehicle Used[edit]

For some reason, Nuclear Weapon Archive, the apparent source for the first few paragraphs of the Starfish Prime test page, erroneously states that a Mk 4 reentry vehicle was used in the tests, but photos of the actual vehicle on the launch pad show a standard-looking GE Mk 2 blunt heat-sink shape, rather than the very different, golf-tee shaped Mk 4 (which was an Atlas ICBM warhead not used on Thor).

Vela spike (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer[edit]

nothing in this item about cancer caused by fallout!!!

i work in aerospace and never heard of this program- was it classified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.130.142.29 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?[edit]

Is there a source for this information? I'd like to learn more about high-altitude nuclear tests. Gary 19:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be why there is a hole('dimple') in the ozone layer? S0703
I seriously doubt it (but I'm not a nuclear scientist). The ozone layer is spontaneously produced from free Oxygen in the upper atmosphere. The ozone depleting chemicals break down the ozone, theoretically faster than it can be renewed. These chemicals include nitric oxide (NO), hydroxyl (OH), and atomic chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br). Some of thse are produced in a nuclear detonation in small quantities, but not to the same level as was pumped into the air from aerosol sources. Atmospheric science is a tricky thing, and there's not so much a "hole" in the atmosophere the same way there'd be a crater for decades after a test. BLP 16:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Civilian Damage[edit]

This article could benefit from a blurb regarding whether the owners of damaged electronics were compensated or not as a result of this test. Long distance microwave antennae aren't cheap.

I too would like to see some cited sources about EM radiation damage. Is there a site that would keep track of such expenses?-Blake Dayton 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentioned televisions and radio sets "malfunctioning" but is vauge as to the extent or severity of such malfunctions and whether they were permanent. 213.40.112.230 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims that the test knocked out the Telstar communication satellite. However, the linked article on Telstar states that the satellite was not even launched until the following day and was operational until February 1963. The apparent inconsistency needs to be addressed. User:conchubair 13:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The failures occurred over a period of months. I've tried to clarify the passage in question. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Needs sources"?[edit]

What is meant by this? There are at least six sources linked. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the paragraph about the problems with Bluegill test could use a source about that. The paragraph about the effects of the EMP on infrastructure in Hawaii could probably use a source, as could the narrative about Trainor, which I didn't find in the main article on Trainor (which incidentally reads like a {{resume}}).
I was also hoping that it could be made clearer what the sources are supporting, maybe with footnotes and proper formatting (with info in case one of the links eventually goes dead).
Also, the article only has one section and it is quite long. Plus, I don't think I've seen a quote that long before in an article that wasn't quickly removed.
Maybe {{wikify}} wasn't the best template to use, but I think it is more encompassing than some others. Ufwuct 20:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I read correctly, the long quote is declassified US government material. If it's US government produced, then it's usually considered public domain. It's possible that it would even be ok to use the text inline, and make modifications to it, but someone would have to check up on that. -Kieran 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section/Cleanup tags[edit]

It seems the above discussion resulted in a {{section}} tag. I've now sectioned the article, moving a bit of text around to where it seemed to fit best. I've left a cleanup tag, however. Firstly, the section about other Thor rocket tests probably belongs in the Operation_Dominic article, rather than this one. Secondly, although there are references, there are still quite a few unreferenced claims, and it would be better for the references to be listed in full at the bottom of the article. (This would also allow dubious references to be identified.) -Kieran 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outer space[edit]

In what sense was this test in "outer space"? It is a woolly term. Just "space" would be better. Or how about describing it as outside the Earth's atmosphere? This would be true for most definitions of the atmosphere. 192.102.214.6 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article looks correct in this regard. It indicates the height at which the test takes place and it wasn't outside the earth's atmosphere, technically speaking, as the atmosphere doesn't really have a boundary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.48.213 (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

of course the atmosphere has a boundary - that's just silly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.44.139 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Soviet mention of test[edit]

There's a bit mentioned about the effect of the Starfish Prime test in an interview with Soviet space agency folks in a journal from 1962, where there was a Q&A session with the Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 cosmonauts; it's kind of interesting and might make a good for ref the article. I'll just paste in the cite template I've got:

""Group Space Flight" Described" (PDF). Flight. 82 (2791). London: Iliffe Transport Publications: p. 391. 6 September 1962. Retrieved 2009-03-17. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

−jhf (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPR error[edit]

I've just removed the "although NPR makes a significant error in stating the yield of Starfish Prime", for three reasons. First, it's not NPR that makes the error, but rather Flemming, their interviewee. Secondly, it's not in the linked article, but only in the indirect audio. And thirdly, I'm bothered about the "although", which seems out of place. Maybe adding a footnote simply pointing out the inconsistency? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is the best way to handle this. This NPR story is very good, except for making this very large error in comparing the size of the Hiroshima and Starfish Prime weapons. If the error stopped with the NPR story, it wouldn't matter. I just don't want Wikipedia to be responsible for further spreading false information that may continue to propagate. X5dna (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed NPR about this. They have a CONTACT page on npr.org for submitting error corrections, so perhaps they will make a correction on their web page. That would be the best solution. I hate to be picky about these facts, but the claimed location for Starfish Prime literally wandered all across the Pacific for decades. It even moved around in its claimed location in this Wikipedia article (in spite of declassified official documents showing its exact location).  I don't want to see its claimed size move over a great range for the next several years because of a link from Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. X5dna (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that NPR issuing a correction would be the best thing. They do get the size right, I think - 1.4 megatons vs the 13 kiloton of Hiroshima. It's just that someone cannot divide properly (could have been me ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NPR did post a correction on their web site about the Starfish Prime bomb size this week. Thanks to NPR for their integrity in getting it right in the end. X5dna (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph...[edit]

Someone has this as being part of "operation monkeycock" and monkeydong... can we change this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anondy (talk • contribs) 08:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude claims[edit]

The article currently states, 'The Thor missile carrying the Starfish Prime warhead reached a maximum height of about 1100 km (just over 680 miles), and the warhead detonated on its downward trajectory when it had fallen to the programmed altitude of 400 kilometres (250 mi).' This is sourced to Operation Dominic, Fish Bowl Series: Debris Expansion Experiment. As I read that source, no such claim is made. According to the source, there were five instrumentation rockets which were launched in the minutes before the Thor missile launch. It was these which reached 1100 km, not the Thor. No claim is made about the maximum altitude of the Thor missile. If there is no further comment I will remove this claim from the article. - Crosbie 20:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the Thor apogee is not given in the reference listed at the end of the paragraph. That information is in a different report. There should have been a different reference added after the relevant sentence. Feel free to remove the information about the Thor maximum altitude. I will add it back in when I have time to find the correct reference and add it to the end of the sentence so that there will be proper inline references to the material. X5dna (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it for now. Thank-you for your reply. - Crosbie 19:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

That is one seriously cool name BloodSpaghetti (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Starfish Prime. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Van Allen Radiation Belts[edit]

Wasn't the operation originally planned as something to do with the Van Allen radiation belt?Foofbun (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Starfish_Prime&oldid=1210542274"