• Nuclear powered aircraft. Possible?
    119 replies, posted
I had a thought earlier today. Is it plausible to have an aircraft that made power with a nuclear generator. From what i know i can assume an airplane with a nuclear generator can't be a jet aircraft seeing as how jet engines require a burning fuel, i would think it would have to use propellers. But with that sort of weight it might not be plausible. But, i need a larger understanding of nuclear energy to be able to think this through properly. Basically my thinking is, If a submarine can do it, why can't a plane?
No shit sherlock. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shit reply" - GunFox))[/highlight]
I'm afraid i don't get your meaning.
Not at the moment, in the future, yes. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator[/url]
[QUOTE=uberdood15;22204765]IIf a submarine can do it, why can't a plane?[/QUOTE] Because it would require a fucking [I]massive[/I] plane, and submarines use propellers, which are more efficient underwater than they are in the air. picture is relevant to thread [img]http://legorobotcomics.com/comics/15.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Kylel999;22204905]Because it would require a fucking [I]massive[/I] plane, and submarines use propellers, which are more efficient underwater than they are in the air. [/QUOTE] How massive are we talking here? Like An-225 massive or graf zeppelin massive?
MOTHER FUCKING HUGE. Because you have to have wings lrage enough to provide lift for that massive plane structure to support the generator, the generator, the safety deviecs for that generator (shielding and such, lead is pretty heavy BTW) Then you have the cargo and other. So you have to provide enough lift area and output energy to lift the beast to even make it feasable it would also require massive runways and other special accomodations. So practical: FUCK NO Possible: Yea Possible at this time: prob. not Remember I said outputted energy that is NOT = to inputed energy, the input energy is always higher than the output and if your plane can only use 10% of the input from the nuclear reactor then you are inefficient and pointlessly wasting supplys that could be used in powering homes with nuclear power. Look at how massive the Massive carrier plane is, it can hold a shit tone of vehicles and crap but look at the size, that's still a jetplane, imagine that with a nuclear reactor strapped to it and all the other devices needed to convert and harness the energy from said reactor. It would be that plane and then a lot more plane on top of that.
Yeah and then the plane crashes.
we get this thread every other month
Well, the technology does exist, and it is very plausible, as per the fission fragment rockets. But in the event of an accident, the nuclear fuel could contaminate an extremely large area. So it will not be practical. Ideas like this have surfaced many time before, and were shot down by that single problem.
80%+ enriched uranium are the only type of uranium used in nuclear explosive. 20%- enriched uranium is generally for pacifist uses since its not that unstable. Can be used for medicine and reactors. So NO EXPLOSIVE JETPACKS kylel
Been done, program was canceled in 1958 tho due to the public going "Nuclear planes? FUCK NO!" [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6[/url] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/NB-36H_with_B-50%2C_1955_-_DF-SC-83-09332.jpeg/750px-NB-36H_with_B-50%2C_1955_-_DF-SC-83-09332.jpeg[/img]
Ah, Interesting. So the idea is plausible, just extremely impractical.
I make that shirt er day
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;22204881]Not at the moment, in the future, yes. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator[/url][/QUOTE] RTG's only power a few hundred watts, enough for space probes but not enough for planes
It's basically too impractical. It's too heavy, you'd need a massive plane with most the volume full of what is potentially a air bursting Chernobyl. Which is never a good thing.
It doesn't need to be propellers, it can be ionizing lift, as long as you have enough power output. Plus they are silent. If they where going to do it, it would be like an aircraft carrier in the sky instead of the water.
No. Russians tried it, it failed. Mainly due to the fact that to protect the pilots you needed to encase the cabin in Lead, which is very, very heavy.
Probably not. Plus, who wants to have the nuclear powered planes fucking decimate the land around them if they are shot down?
[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;22205708]Probably not. Plus, who wants to have the nuclear powered planes fucking decimate the land around them if they are shot down?[/QUOTE] Because nuclear material explodes when sneezed at or hit with conventional explosive. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;22205708]Probably not. Plus, who wants to have the nuclear powered planes fucking decimate the land around them if they are shot down?[/QUOTE] That would actually be good. You have a moral dilema when shooting down the bombers. Choice A. Let the bombers live, let them destroy their targets, ie. your artillery, tanks, etc. Choice B. Shoot them down, fuck up your own country with radiation doing potentially more damage than the bombs would have.
I give you the Nuclear Turbojet powered blended-wing body airborne aircraft carrier design! [IMG]http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k12/Useful_Dave/CL-1201AAC.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Luuper;22205287]RTG's only power a few hundred watts, enough for space probes but not enough for planes[/QUOTE] That's why I said "not at the moment".
[QUOTE=scout1;22205732]Because nuclear material explodes when sneezed at or hit with conventional explosive. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] But wouldn't the nuclear material, likely unstable, go supercritical without coolant?
Reminds me of the Aigon from Ace Combat.
[QUOTE=scout1;22205732]Because nuclear material explodes when sneezed at or hit with conventional explosive. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] No but showering a landscape with radioactive material isn't exactly that good for it either.
Not as much of a plane, but [img]http://www.boingboing.net/images/_mattm_balihai_images_pluto.jpg[/img]?
[IMG]http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/concept_cars_6b.jpg[/IMG] Say hello to the 1958 Ford Nucleon Powered by a miniature nuclear reactor. Sadly never got into production.
It might be possible eventually, but not at the moment due to the amount of weight and space needed for a "portable" nuclear reactor as the biggest obstacle
wonder why
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.