My Dream Airplane - Nuclear Powered

AndrewX

AndrewX

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
101
Display Name
Display name:
Andrew
I just read an article about wastebasket-sized nuclear power plants. Image your favorite airframe, Cessna, Cirrus, Diamond, Cub, Baron, Bonanza, Moony, Waco, etc. Except with an electric engine powered by a miniature nuclear power plant. This plane would never need re-fueling and it would fly forever. FUEL ON BOARD: 50 years. Probably not in my lifetime.


https://www.popsci.com/nuclear-reactors-mars#page-3
 
I can see it now, it’d only be a billion dollar option and now you get to deal with the FAA and the NRC
 
N659HB said:
Wasn't there a nuke-powered bomber design back in the '50s?
Click to expand...
There were a couple of designs back then, and (IIRC) a B-36 was test-flown carrying a small reactor but it didn't power anything onboard. There was at least one US nuke powered low-altitude cruise missile design - I don't recall details of how they generated thrust, but the concept was a triple-threat: The warhead, the radioactive wake, and the acoustic and overpressure damage due to the shock wave as it flew over.

Nauga,
gone fission
 
HA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
Important takeaway: "The SLAM [supersonic low-altitude missile] as proposed would carry a payload of many nuclear weapons to be dropped on multiple targets, making the cruise missile into an unmanned bomber. After delivering all its warheads, the missile could then spend weeks flying over populated areas at low altitudes, causing tremendous ground damage with its shock wave and radiation from its unshielded reactor. When it finally lost enough power to fly, and crash-landed, the engine would have a good chance of spewing deadly radiation for months to come."

Times were different back then...o_O

Nauga, and the gift that keeps on giving
 
The article is not clear if the wastebasket size is for the 1 kw prototype or the envisioned 10 kw Martian system. Either way, at a conversion factor of only 1.34 hp per kw, you'll need a lot of wastebaskets up front.
 
dozens of small fission reactors buzzing overhead our cities,
how could anyone object to that?
 
Yea I'd be afraid of this if for nothing else those few people that like to skip maintenance and then seeing on the news "the 7th city this week has been encompassed in radiation due to another poorly maintained nuclear plane"
 
nauga said:
HA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
Important takeaway: "The SLAM [supersonic low-altitude missile] as proposed would carry a payload of many nuclear weapons to be dropped on multiple targets, making the cruise missile into an unmanned bomber. After delivering all its warheads, the missile could then spend weeks flying over populated areas at low altitudes, causing tremendous ground damage with its shock wave and radiation from its unshielded reactor. When it finally lost enough power to fly, and crash-landed, the engine would have a good chance of spewing deadly radiation for months to come."

Times were different back then...o_O

Nauga, and the gift that keeps on giving
Click to expand...

Whoa that is hardcore!
 
nauga said:
There were a couple of designs back then, and (IIRC) a B-36 was test-flown carrying a small reactor but it didn't power anything onboard. There was at least one US nuke powered low-altitude cruise missile design - I don't recall details of how they generated thrust, but the concept was a triple-threat: The warhead, the radioactive wake, and the acoustic and overpressure damage due to the shock wave as it flew over.

Nauga,
gone fission
Click to expand...
I worked with several engineers who worked on both the nuclear powered airplane project and the nuclear powered rocket program as graduate students in the late 50’s and early 60’s. If IIRC, the programs were shut down in the early 60’s. Neither of the reactor designs got off the ground -lead shielding was simply much too heavy for flight in an airplane or a rocket. At least as of several years ago, the prototypes were still in test stands near the TAN located on DOE’s Idaho National Engineering Lab located near Idaho Falls.
 
Mr. Fusion Home Energy Reactor

back-to-future-ii-mr-fusion-home-energy-reactor-replica-1.jpg
 
Convair flew a 3 megawatt reactor in the NB-36 out of Carswell a number of times. I used to work with a bunch guys involved with the project.
 
Craig said:
Convair flew a 3 megawatt reactor in the NB-36 out of Carswell a number of times. I used to work with a bunch guys involved with the project.
Click to expand...
Interesting. 3 MW is approximately 4000hp, if you could convert it to thrust efficiently. It might almost fly. :)
 
nauga said:
HA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
Important takeaway: "The SLAM [supersonic low-altitude missile] as proposed would carry a payload of many nuclear weapons to be dropped on multiple targets, making the cruise missile into an unmanned bomber. After delivering all its warheads, the missile could then spend weeks flying over populated areas at low altitudes, causing tremendous ground damage with its shock wave and radiation from its unshielded reactor. When it finally lost enough power to fly, and crash-landed, the engine would have a good chance of spewing deadly radiation for months to come."

Times were different back then...o_O

Nauga, and the gift that keeps on giving
Click to expand...


Large government, spending peasants money to constantly create more and more ways to kill peasants.
 
James331 said:
Large government, spending peasants money to constantly create more and more ways to kill peasants.
Click to expand...
Under the guise of protecting the American way of life....who can argue with that
 
Getonit said:
Under the guise of protecting the American way of life....who can argue with that
Click to expand...

Lol right, it's all for the children says both sides, who make war machines to melt children like gummy bears on a hot dash
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top