The De-Satellitisation Issue

Standing aside from destructive consequences of modern war, the nuclear bomb is in fact the greatest gift to man since each one is an interstellar space fuel pellet. Any child that has played with a firecracker in a tin can knows by experience it flies off. Only in space it can't be tethered and would fly off in space, getting faster and faster. So you have to think scale and imagine the pilot, shield and conventionally powered return engines. Containment would be difficult but the testing mechanism has to be seriously thought upon since one cannot tether in space and hence would need giant conventional return engines. That is to say the mid 1960s treaties prohibiting atomic testing in space are not so relevant with the end of the cold war. It may be this development route is the only way to deliver enough power.
 
The time to consider manned atomic testing in space is now, before star wars is implemented. What is the only useful use of an atomic explosion? Use between two suns. Since testing might damage some satellite and owners would have to be compensated, if it is done 25 years in the future and star wars is a reality then the military might just decide to stage a war in order to destroy the satellite to free up orbits for testing without having to pay-out any compensation. Obviously to fly out of the solar system the explosions would have to be consecutive, but that is a small technical detail. The real stretch of the imagination and faith is that the critical mass can actually be contained in space and well that's what needs testing. So however dangerous the project proposal seems, we need now the cold war is over to examine this expensive option very closely.

The only real limiting factor to such testing earlier on in our history has been the maturity of payload performance. No one is going to volunteer to sit on top of an exploding atomic tube unless it has been tested. If it cracks half way then you are not coming back. So bearing in mind a return interstellar voyage may take 100 explosions, a target benchmark-testing programme may be 10. So even if your payload launch success rate is 90% as it sort of has reached nowadays, 1 out of the 10 will fail and scatter radioactivity on the earth (but not explode). I do not believe we will ever discover another way of powering ourselves out of the solar system except through this method just outlined.

In business no one plans 14 years in the future which is what you are asking any interstellar theorist to do if they cannot adapt the theory of relativity. Of course you can always side-track yourself into cryogenics and wait for developments...and wait for developments...and wait.

So without the cold war the treaties of the mid 60s, prohibiting atomic testing in space is not vital to maintain peace and we sort of have a window before star wars kicks in. The cost then of testing in space is a high risk of serious nuclear conflict because commercial satellites are expensive and it would be a little too tempting to avoid the compensation payments for damages from EMF by starting a war to avoid the payments.

The De-Satellitisation Issue continued

EMF signals, as a test by-product would also damage some commercial satellites. However this can at the moment be insured against. However the promise of star wars technology may at a later date invoke conflict over the de- satellitisation issue. This is because should a leading nation be convinced that manned atomic testing in space was essential for the future of mankind, staging a satellite war might be the way to engineer a clearing of the orbits of commercial satellites. This is in preference to doing it now with universal permission and paying compensation to commercial satellite owners. Hence before America leads us into the new era of star wars technology it should look very closely at that little boy putting a banger (firework) in a can. On a grander scale the atomic explosion when successfully contained (perhaps by thick steel-carbons) in space would provide the energy to travel beyond light speed. What else produces so much energy and does not need oxygen etc.?

There is no grand invention waiting for discovery that will enable us to travel to other solar systems. We had the grand invention in 1945 only we have made no practical use of it, except as a tool of war. Is it not likely that a little sideways thinking and testing in space of containment is the obvious way to release enough raw energy to power a spacecraft faster than light? That is explained by a new theory of accelerative relativity! Does the future of our planet depend on expanding to other solar systems? If so, should we be less trustworthy of any formula that immediately condemns such a scientific effort to a minimum of 14 years travel to the nearest location? To travel distance quickly requires processes that release most energy and in such a way that top speeds are less limited. What releases more energy than a nuclear explosion and why put a top speed limit on something until it is shown dynamically to be limited?

Testing containment in space of the American invented "super gunpowder" or uranium is worth it. Evaluating any current risks during peacetime is better than judging ourselves against mankind's past record of global conflicts. If we do nothing then someday our children’s children will not be here. The Chinese invented gunpowder but it took Europeans to develop the cannon. Likewise the Americans developed the atomic bomb but once they had developed this "gunpowder" could not develop interstellar propulsion. Any idiot who has ever put a firework in a tin can as a child could invent such a propulsion system. However it appears that by rejecting F=MA for a theory of relativity such speculation becomes irrelevant as if we cannot travel faster than light then not much economic good will come out of 14 years space travel to the nearest sun. This book has to question these truths.