Did Star Trek's Nuclear Mortar Have a Real-Life Counterpart?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 256bits
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the real-life counterpart of the nuclear mortar depicted in Star Trek, specifically referencing the Davy Crockett nuclear device. While initially considered a futuristic concept, it was revealed that such devices were developed in the mid-20th century for military use, including applications like demolition. Despite innovative ideas for peaceful uses, such as excavation, these devices never gained practical traction. The conversation also touches on other nuclear technologies from that era, including suitcase bombs and atomic cannons, which were designed for tactical military operations. Ultimately, while these technologies existed, their practical applications were limited and often deemed unsuitable for modern warfare.
256bits
Gold Member
Messages
4,039
Reaction score
2,092
There is an episode of Star Trek where Kirk and Spock use a mortar with a nuclear explosive head against an alien threat.
At the time I had thought that it was an interesting device, but completely futuristic. But, as I have learned, it does seem that in this instance, Star Trek had copied from a real working technological device.
The device is discontinued for service troops with good reason.

In the 50's, 60's, 70's ingenious minds could come up with crafty use of such a small kilo-ton device other than military, such as espoused in magazines such as Popular Mechanics or Popular Science, such as excavation, dam building or whatever.

It never caught on as being practical or necessary. AFAIK, no Earth movement was ever tested with such a device.

I guess possible questions would be:
1. Was there ever a test for Earth movement?
2. How many other "new" technologies on Star Trek were actual adaptations of technology of the day.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

( Half science and half fiction, so could be in the incorrect sub-topic, except for the nuclear part )
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
We also developed a "suitcase bomb." Actually it fit into a large backpack. The idea was that in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe, small teams could parachute in, and destroy bridges and other structures useful to the invader, by placing the suitcase nuke next to the target. This was a quick and easy alternative to using plastic explosives. As long as the bomb went off, you were certain to destroy the target. Naturally the other side developed their own. A few years ago, during the breakup of the USSR, there was a report that some of their suitcase nukes had gone missing.

We also had an "atomic cannon." I saw an old model of this cannon in a toy store. I thought it was a joke until I looked it up. This was literally a cannon that fired a shell with a nuclear warhead. Combine this fact with the ability we have to develop ultra-long-range cannons. You would not need to fire many shells, would you?
 
  • Like
Likes 256bits
The Davy Crockett underwent two atmospheric tests, the Little Feller II weapons effects test shot on July 7, 1962, and the Little Feller I weapons system test shot on July 17, 1962. Little Feller I was the last atmospheric nuclear test conducted at Nevada Test Site.

Here's a film reel explaining Little Feller I and showing the test shot.

 
David Reeves said:
We also developed a "suitcase bomb." Actually it fit into a large backpack. The idea was that in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe, small teams could parachute in, and destroy bridges and other structures useful to the invader, by placing the suitcase nuke next to the target. This was a quick and easy alternative to using plastic explosives. As long as the bomb went off, you were certain to destroy the target. Naturally the other side developed their own. A few years ago, during the breakup of the USSR, there was a report that some of their suitcase nukes had gone missing.

That's the Special Atomic Demolition Munition.

We also had an "atomic cannon." I saw an old model of this cannon in a toy store. I thought it was a joke until I looked it up. This was literally a cannon that fired a shell with a nuclear warhead. Combine this fact with the ability we have to develop ultra-long-range cannons. You would not need to fire many shells, would you?

That's the M65 Atomic Cannon (nicknamed Atomic Annie). The W19 nuclear artillery shell was developed for the 16 inch guns of the Iowa class battleships (I think also usable by the South Dakota and North Carolina classes). Nuclear shells were developed for 8 inch and 6 inch artillery pieces shortly afterwards, but there was such rapid development of nuclear and rocketry technology in the 1950s that the systems were deemed unsuitable for use in Europe due to short range. They saw a few more years service in Korea before being retired.
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
10K
Replies
11
Views
27K
Back
Top