• Nuclear powered aircraft. Possible?
    119 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;22206094][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.[/QUOTE] Reminds me of the cars in Fallout 3.
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;22206094][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.[/QUOTE] Holy shit that thing is awesome, if I ever do anything in my life I'm going to get one of those to work.
How about a large nuclear powered blimp instead? Too heavy?
[QUOTE=Shrapnel :3;22206040]No but showering a landscape with radioactive material isn't exactly that good for it either.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it's not going to "decimate" it. There was an air accident over spain in which at least one nuclear weapon had its conventional explosive detonated, and the damage was confined to minor birth defects in some of the population, and shortly lower life span. Naturaul wildlife was not registered to have any abnormal mutations.
[QUOTE=Restrooms;22206381]How about a large nuclear powered blimp instead? Too heavy?[/QUOTE] No way...wait, hold on. Shit he might be on to something. Blimps don't need a ton of power and can carry loads of cargo if it's big enough. Someone do the math.
[QUOTE=Saphiric;22206497]No way...wait, hold on. Shit he might be on to something. Blimps don't need a ton of power and can carry loads of cargo if it's big enough. Someone do the math.[/QUOTE] blimps are really fragile as far as weight to lift ratio goes, you'd want a zeppelin [editline]02:31AM[/editline] oh yeah and nuclear powered aircraft have already been done by both the US and the USSR
I'd imagine those planes could be enormous, but would require large landing strips.
Nuclear ramjet engines.
[QUOTE=Anteep1;22205096]we get this thread every other month[/QUOTE] I can safely say I've never seen a thread like this.
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;22206094][img_thumb]http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/concept_cars_6b.jpg[/img_thumb] Say hello to the 1958 Ford Nucleon Powered by a miniature nuclear reactor. Sadly never got into production.[/QUOTE] unfortunately, that's a car, not a plane.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;22206581]blimps are really fragile as far as weight to lift ratio goes, you'd want a zeppelin [editline]02:31AM[/editline] oh yeah and nuclear powered aircraft have already been done by both the US and the USSR[/QUOTE] Blimp, zeppelin, you know what he meant.
[QUOTE=Saphiric;22206959]Blimp, zeppelin, you know what he meant.[/QUOTE] Blimps and zeppelins are very different structure wise.
[QUOTE=STREWTH_99;22205167]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][/QUOTE] The nuclear plant wasn't actualy powering any systems on the plane, it was just an experiment to see what the effects of the nuclearness would be on the planes structure and the crew.
[QUOTE=uberdood15;22204765]Basically my thinking is, If a submarine can do it, why can't a plane?[/QUOTE] For the same reason why a traditional nuclear power plant is always located near a water source? Unless I'm rather mistaken, all nuclear reactors are basically steam engines except they don't use coal burning to heat the water/gas.
It's completely possible at the moment and has been for years. As others have said the US and former Soviet Union have tried and the US got pretty far into the development of the plane. Problems were that it would emit nuclear waste and it would be a much bigger problem if a nuclear plane crashed than if a jet powered aircraft crashed. It would also look horrible in the eyes of the public if there were an accident. These outweighed the benefits of a nuclear plane compared to a jet powered plane with mid air refueling.
[QUOTE=Kylel999;22204905]A good comic[/QUOTE] Here: I made my own, and fix'd [img]http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7113/jetpack.png[/img]
[QUOTE=scout1;22206982]Blimps and zeppelins are very different structure wise.[/QUOTE] Fine. Nuclear powered dirigibles.
Explode nuke behind you, hoist sail
[QUOTE=Uberslug;22207503]Explode nuke behind you, hoist sail[/QUOTE] Project Orion FTW
Theoretically yes, but there are several problems: 1. Weight. A nuclear reactor is heavy as fuck. This makes it suitable more for heavy bombers, transports and such, rather than fighters. 2. Energy Type. Nuclear reactors produce heat and/or electricity. They are not readily able to produce thrust, the way a jet or ramjet can. They could run propellers, however. Thus, they are best-suited to low-flying aircraft. 3. Cost. Nuclear reactors are extremely expensive, and that's not even including the actual motors now. 4. Wrong advantages. Nuclear-powered vehicles have certain advantages: long range, and quiet engines. Neither of these are of real use for aircraft. 5. Wrong disadvantages. The problems a nuclear vehicle has are precisely the wrong ones for an aircraft: high weight and continuous operation. Weight is the real killer, but remember that nuclear reactors are rarely shut down and restarted, since that's arguably the most dangerous part. It's far safer to keep it running continuously; most power plants use off-peak power to charge a battery or pump water uphill for use in hydro power during peak. So, possible? Undoubtedly. Plausible? It may be of utility on a city-sized dirigible. Reasonable? Not at all.
[QUOTE=Stupideye;22206185]Reminds me of the cars in Fallout 3.[/QUOTE] The designers of the game based the cars littered in the street on the looks of various 50's concept cars, including this one.
[QUOTE=zydos;22207236]Here: I made my own, and fix'd [img]http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7113/jetpack.png[/img][/QUOTE] Too bad yours isn't funny.
[QUOTE=gamefreek76;22207903]Too bad yours isn't funny.[/QUOTE] Never claimed it to be. Just honest.
What about a nuclear powered dirigible? Would be kickass.
Nuclear powered catamaran.
Nuclear powered spaceship might be a good or bad idea
[QUOTE=Athena;22205092]Yeah and then the plane crashes.[/QUOTE] do you understand how nuclear energy works or do you just hear the word nuclear and think of a mushroom cloud?
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;22208109]do you understand how nuclear energy works or do you just hear the word nuclear and think of a mushroom cloud?[/QUOTE] If you throw a ball of uranium at a wall it vaporizes everything in the country. You should have paid more attention in math class.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;22208158]If you throw a ball of uranium at a wall it vaporizes everything in the country. You should have paid more attention in math class.[/QUOTE] Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;22208158]If you throw a ball of uranium at a wall it vaporizes everything in the country. You should have paid more attention in math class.[/QUOTE] Someone has no idea how nuclear weapons work... In an implosion assembly type nuclear weapon, high-explosive lenses have to be placed symmetrically around the fissile material. Even the smallest misplacement will botch the explosion. As the fissile material needs an even distribution of extremely high energy to complete the fission. The combined explosive power of all of the lenses is around 100 tons of TNT. A small drop or, even a very large explosion isn't going to cause a nuclear explosion. You need precise symmetry of energy distribution to cause fissile material to detonate. Otherwise it will just spread radioactive material all around causing havoc. Word to the wise, don't watch TV and say you know things.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.