[QUOTE=xeo xeo;22213885]Where do they dump old fuel rods?[/QUOTE]
Sea, air, they're flying, just open a window and done.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;22212881]That, and the amount of lead needed to shield the passengers lest they glow in the dark afterwards would probably stop the thing from getting in the air in the first place.[/QUOTE]
The engines are at the back because the reactor is as well.
The aerodynamic design of the aircraft (seriously, someone already put a model of this in a wind tunnel and those stubby stabilizers at the front actually do something) is such that the engines themselves keep the aircraft from tipping backwards while in flight and stalling because of the weight of the reactor. Stop the engines however and there is nothing to keep the aft up and down she goes.
I would also like to point out that in 98% of all aircraft crashes, the aft always remains the most undamaged (hence why the two black boxes are stored there) part of the plane which makes it the most suitable location to place a nuclear reactor.
So long as the weight of the nuclear reactor does not exceed the capacity on two of FireFlash's four engines there should not be any issues.
Of course it is possible, just strap a nuclear missle to a plane.
The idea is possible, AND practical (Nuclear reactors have a considerable mass but that's not much of a problem). The problem is people who think nuclear reactors can explode like a nuclear bomb. Chernobyl happened because the reactor has poorly designed, poorly built and poorly handled. Nuclear power is safe.
Thorium reactors would be smaller, cheaper, and safer and produce more power than typical Uranium reactors.
And I doubt a single radisotopic thermoelectric generator could power an entire plane, but that's just me.
Some persons are just fucking idiotic when it comes to nuclear power. Everyone goes 'lolno chernobyl' all the time.
The main problem is that other engines do the job better. You can have a rocket-powered tank, but it wouldn't work as well as what we have now. Same for a nuclear-powered plane. It would work, but other things work better.
Incidentally, I originally wrote "jet-powered tank" before I remembered what powers the M1 Abrams.
I doubt it'll be possible any time soon but in the future i suppose something along these lines.
Wait, wasnt there a nuclear powered jet in thunderbirds?
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_machines#Fireflash[/URL]
Yes! That thing was epic. And sexy looking.
did i hear somebody say Nuclear
[img]http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/media/bush_nuke_55.JPG[/img]
[QUOTE=nightlord;22216424]Of course it is possible, just strap a nuclear missle to a plane.[/QUOTE]
Thats plain stupid. Nuclear missiles don't burn nuclear fuel. They are ordinary missiles until they go kaboooooom.
:flame:
[QUOTE=BCell;22208076]Nuclear powered spaceship might be a good or bad idea[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's gotta be one or the other.
Snip
[QUOTE=AlienCreature;22218209]Thats plain stupid. Nuclear missiles don't burn nuclear fuel. They are ordinary missiles until they go kaboooooom.
:flame:[/QUOTE]
I know that, i wasn't being serious.
the issue with a nuclear powered aircraft is that if something went wrong you'd have fallout all over the goddamn place
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;22218791]the issue with a nuclear powered aircraft is that if something went wrong you'd have fallout all over the goddamn place[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. A couple bombers have crashed while carrying nuclear bombs, and the leaked radiation was nearly nonexistent. Armor the reactor like that, and it'll be fine.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;22205763]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.[/QUOTE]
we just invented a new experimental nuclear plane!!!
go tell the enemy! :D
[editline]09:24PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=xeo xeo;22213885]Where do they dump old fuel rods?[/QUOTE]
on the enemy
[QUOTE=xeo xeo;22213885]Where do they dump old fuel rods?[/QUOTE]
North Korea.
[QUOTE=xeo xeo;22213885]Where do they dump old fuel rods?[/QUOTE]
In Yucca Mountain.
Fuel Rods don't get spent in like an hour.
Their are nuclear power options that are basically a battery being made by the company Hyperion, not the one from borderlands. A bath tub sized power source could work on most aircraft. You still need to cool the water and a turbine but thats semantics.
[quote=Google]The portable nuclear reactor is the size of a hot tub. It’s shaped like a sake cup, filled with a uranium hydride core and surrounded by a hydrogen atmosphere. Encase it in concrete, truck it to a site, bury it underground, hook it up to a steam turbine and, voila, one would generate enough electricity to power a 25,000-home community for at least five years.
The company Hyperion Power Generation was formed last month to develop the nuclear fission reactor at Los Alamos National Laboratory and take it into the private sector. If all goes according to plan, Hyperion could have a factory in New Mexico by late 2012, and begin producing 4,000 of these reactors.
Though it would produce 27 megawatts worth of thermal energy, Hyperion doesn’t like to think of its product as a “reactor.” It’s self-contained, involves no moving parts and, therefore, doesn’t require a human operator.
“In fact, we prefer to call it a ‘drive’ or a ‘battery’ or a ‘module’ in that it’s so safe,” Hyperion spokeswoman Deborah Blackwell says. “Like you don’t open a double-A battery, you just plug [the reactor] in and it does its chemical thing inside of it. You don’t ever open it or mess with it.”[/quote]
I say its definitely do able.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;22219238]Not necessarily. A couple bombers have crashed while carrying nuclear bombs, and the leaked radiation was nearly nonexistent. Armor the reactor like that, and it'll be fine.[/QUOTE]
Nuclear bombs and reactors work quite differently, plus the armour would weigh the plane down any way, making it impractical.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;22207587]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.[/quote]
Correct
[QUOTE=gman003-main;22207587]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.
[/quote]
Just thermal Energy due to radiation which can be converted into electrictiy, which the can be used to be converted into thrust.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;22207587]
3. Cost. Nuclear reactors are extremely expensive, and that's not even including the actual motors now.[/quote]
Yep
[QUOTE=gman003-main;22207587]
4. Wrong advantages. Nuclear-powered vehicles have certain advantages: long range, and quiet engines. Neither of these are of real use for aircraft.
[/quote]
What speaks against long-range? Don't you like planes, which don't need to refuel all the time?
Also the engines (which create the thrust) wont be quite
[QUOTE=gman003-main;22207587]
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.
[/quote]
Weight is a problem, yes. Shutting down/starting a reactor isn't. It's not dangerous. The problem is only reactor-poisoning causing the reactor to be inoperable for a moment of time (That's why you shouldn't turn off and on a nuclear reactor on short scales).
[QUOTE=gman003-main;22207587]So, possible? Undoubtedly. Plausible? It may be of utility on a city-sized dirigible. Reasonable? Not at all.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
[editline]10:36PM[/editline]
[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 a plane with a nuclear reactor crashes, it's still a desaster. There musn't be a thermonuclear explosion (which could happen if the crash compressed the fissionable material below the critical mass) but it will definitely cause poisoning a huge area (like a dirty bomb).
Wow, what can't uranium do?
[QUOTE=Dwarfy77;22245662]Wow, what can't uranium do?[/QUOTE]
Float in water. :science:
[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]
Yeah then 200 years later some douchebag who has been living inside a a giant metal vault comes out and blows it to hell by shooting it in the tire with a .32 pistol
It might be far more practical for spacecraft.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];22249937']It might be far more practical for spacecraft.[/QUOTE]
No, if a shuttle or rocket blows up in the atmosphere, we get littered with radioactive debris, not a good idea.
If every vehicle on earth runs on nuclear.
Every accident is lethal .. [i]Very Lethal[/i]
[QUOTE=Anteep1;22205096]we get idiots like me every fucking day[/QUOTE]
Fixed
But yeah, nuclear powered aircraft have been made before. As mentioned previously in the thread.
I've been thinking about the concept a lot lately since we're running out of hydrocarbons so we need to find an alternative to kerosene.
[QUOTE=abcpea;22212952]they could create thrust by superheating air and help control thrust with variable exhaust pressure
idea copyright me 2010
[editline]11:43PM[/editline]
[URL=http://img408.imageshack.us/i/projectgypsietears.png/][IMG]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3419/projectgypsietears.png[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE]
There's similar ideas for nuclear space propulsion. It normally involves the exhaust coming in contact with the reactor fuel though, leading to it becoming radioactive.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.