What went wrong?

>>8373999
fukushima

nuke test ban of 1963 stopped the insanity

>>8373999
>What went wrong?
Nothing went wrong.
The point was never to build one.
The point was to explore the possibilities.
And it's more than a little difficult to justify the cost if the main payoff is to satisfy your Buck Rodgers fantasies.

>>8374120
And make interplanetary travel more feasible. Yeah... Good luck justifying that.

>>8374120
woulda been cheaper and better than Apollo

Imagine watching one of these fuckers launch
Over 400 nukes just to reach over

>>8374476
orbit*

Still not fast enough to leave the solar system and travel in a reasonable amount of time.

File: USAF Orion.jpg (136KB, 1213x557px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1213x557px

>>8373999
Kennedy didn't have the balls to let the Air Force get pic related and NASA didn't have the will or money to finish the project on their own. The treaties were just the nail in the coffin.

>>8374120
Actually they wanted to build one and had much of the testing planned out. They just never got the funding.

>>8373999
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

>>8374030
>>8374789

This is the answer, sadly.

Also, this treaty has got to be one of the dumbest international agreements in the entire history of mankind. Right up there with the rules of war.

>Can't put nuclear weapons in space
>...except for ICBMs, which fly into space then drop, but they're programmed to not orbit the Earth more than once, so this doesn't violate the treaty
>...literally the only thing stopping ICBMs from violating the treaty is some computer programming which is totally classified

Also, yes, you can create an EMP by detonating a nuke in the upper stratosphere; this treaty stops that how?
>Be Vladimir Putin
>United States launches nuclear attack
>"Gee, we could totally EMP them and fuck their infrastructure by programming one of our warheads to go boom miles above their country..."
>"Nah, better not, it would violate that treaty, and also it would just be mean."

Seriously, does anyone really think this treaty (or any treaty for that matter), is going to thought about for even a microsecond in the event of an actual nuclear war?

>>8373999
Highly inaccurate thrust vector.

>>8375565
It's about the first strike risk, about successfully killing most of the enemies strategic nuke capability in a first strike

>>8375565
Well we haven't had nuclear war since 1945, so I'd say the treaty has been successful

>>8375565
Please tell me this shit can be renegotiated

>>8376570
Unlikely ;^)

File: jfk.jpg (46KB, 220x281px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 220x281px

>>8373999

this weak-kneed democrat killed it