Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Project Pluto

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Introducing one of Wikipedia's stranger articles, an artifact of the Golden Age of Mad Science, which ran from roughly 1945 to 1970. It was fun to write. The project aimed to use a nuclear engine in a supersonic cruise missile. It would operate at Mach 3, or around 3,700 kilometres per hour, be invulnerable to interception by contemporary air defenses, and carry up to sixteen with nuclear weapons with yields of up to 10 megatonnes of TNT. What could possible go wrong? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Marking a spot. This will probably be a bit episodic. Nudge me if I seem to have forgotten about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The need to maintain supersonic speed ... meant that the reactor had to survive high temperatures and intense radiation." I can see how "The need to maintain supersonic speed at low altitude and in all kinds of weather meant that the reactor had to survive high temperatures and intense radiation" but why should the low altitude and the kind of weather raise the reactor temperature and radiation levels? Similarly in the main article.
Y Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice.

The second half of "Development" is probably not in summary enough nor non-technical enough terms for FAC, but it scrapes by my personal ACR threshold.

Down to "Test facilities" and so far it is an excellent read with very little to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the binder was burned out by heating them to 820 °C". Either 'binders were' or 'heating it'.
Y Tweaked to make it clear that we are still talking about the tubes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and the air from them used was passed through filters." This is a little unclear, should it be 'the used air from them'?
Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"were accessible through opening that were normally covered with lead plates". A missing s?
Y Added 's'. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It also contained a maintenance service pit and battery charger for locomotive." '... the locomotive[s]' ?
Y Added 's' Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Issues that had been ignored in Tory II-A had to be resolved in that of Tory II-C." "that of", what of?
Y The design. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the shim rods scrammed". Could we have an in line explanation of scram at first use; it is a specialist usage.
Y Linked to scram.

Bleh! You wouldn't get away with that at FAC.

"equivalent to $1,953 million in 2023". Just a thought '$2 bn'?
Changed to "2,000 million"; is that okay? $2 billion would be trickier with the template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will do. You don't have to use the converter "in line". You could insert "$2 billion" by hand and keep the same cite.

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi, ran the IA Bot on the page, will post my comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]