Nuclear Powered Aircraft

Did one of the Japanese industrial giants not have a small scale nuclear reactor the size of a shipping container in development

GEH PRISM is a relatively small, modular reactor. The bio shield and ancillary systems still take up a lot of space though. There are other small designs, but that one comes to mind because the Government were looking at it a couple of years ago.
 
Just watch out for the extra charges for the "spent nuclear fuel disposal levy".

OT4B3xC.jpg
 
So weight is biggest issue then? But havent we moved forward since 50/60`s in Nuclear technology??

Cant we make a reactor which will not need whole plane filled in concrete and lead to stop radiation? Therefore reducing weight greatly?

Wow you really do not understand. Radiation travels through a lot of things, lead is an effective barrier due to its density and its structure. Density = weight. We can not change how radiation works, that is just physics.

Also, HMS Astute is 97m long whereas the A380 is 73m long. In comparison, Vanguard is about 150m long.

Nuclear submarines are very, very large pieces of machinery, and there are a large number of complex systems needed, just to operate the reactor, cool it, and keep it safe. You are massively underestimating it. If it could've been made as light and small as possible, it already will have. As previously mentioned, spacecraft use very very small radioactive power sources, but they can not power much.
 
Having drones constantly over you're enemy always ready to strike is a huge tactical advantage. ..

don't drones have a self destruct? they can hardly self destruct a drone that's been shotdown/failing to stop the enemy recovering it if radiation is going to spread all over the place
 
Having drones constantly over you're enemy always ready to strike is a huge tactical advantage. ..

The grammar nazi in me just had to pick this up, I've never seen anybody get that word wrong, that way round. They usually use "your" instead of "You're". Well done sir!
 
Did one of the Japanese industrial giants not have a small scale nuclear reactor the size of a shipping container in development

IIRC Mitsubishi or Panasonic (I think it is), have a sub 2m cubed reactor intended to be setup and forget for 10 years that they have full designs (if not a protype) for.
The idea is you place them at main sub stations*, and whenever they need maintenance they are simply taken back to the factory, with a replacement dropped off (I think they are based on research for nuclear subs), one of the key design features was that in the event of a quake or similar they could scram automatically, and without any need for additional cooling - but at the expense of them being able to be reused without complete overhauls (one of the reasons conventional plants don't use the same system is that knocking out 1-2% of your total generating capacity long term is a very last resort and expensive thing to do, but knocking out something that can be replaced in days/weeks is acceptable).
Basically the idea is something close to a very heavy duty backup diesel generator, rather than a major infrastructure project.
One of the problems with it is that apparently it would require exactly the same planning/approval procedures for every installation of it as it would for something like Sizewell, despite being something like 1000th the size and quantity of radioactive materials.

It's still extremely heavy.


Back to the aircraft, from memory both the Americans and Russians had plans for them before ICBM's, an I think the Russians actually built one that they flew.
The problem is the radiation and cooling, from memory the Russians accepted a design that would have used forced air cooling over the reactor and venting straight out** (you would not want to be under it, or down wind of it!), whilst the American design was slightly less likely to give anyone under it two headed offspring, but still nasty and much heavier (so less payload).
Both designs would basically have only been able to have the crew work on them for a few months before they had reached lifetime exposure limits to radiation.

This is based entirely on memory, as I read something about them a couple of years back.


Slightly amusingly there were also designs for nuclear powered tanks (which isn't such a stupid idea, given that most tanks can only carry enough fuel for about a days operation, so are very vulnerable to supply line attacks), and I think they got as far as a prototype with them that basically bolted a reactor onto an existing chasis at the expense of virtually everything else before people cottoned on to the idea that a nuclear reactor on something that was going to get shot at a lot wasn't a great idea.


*And I suspect hospitals and government facilities that needed an independent power supply.

**There may have been one intermediate stage with the Russian design, and two with the American one, but I can't remember exactly, except that the Russians (from memory) accepted a much dirtier but easier to build design.
 
But there are nuclear-powered subs, I havent had time to research dimensions but am sure something as huse as A380 shouldn't be far off nuclear subs.

It is considered to be safe, maybe because if it crashes it will just kill fish? :D

Submarines are designed to sink, aeroplanes are designed to do the exact opposite, you cant compare the two.
 
Wow you really do not understand. Radiation travels through a lot of things, lead is an effective barrier due to its density and its structure. Density = weight. We can not change how radiation works, that is just physics.

Lead is only effective against gamma radiation due to its high Z, in combination with its high density. To stop neutrons, you need something with a low mass, such as concrete. Neutrons will practically zip through lead without a problem.
 
Did one of the Japanese industrial giants not have a small scale nuclear reactor the size of a shipping container in development

Not just in development, deployed to several places. One or more are in Alaskan towns. Iirc.


As already said, the weight killed them off, they're just to heavy and actually low powered as well. Its ok having a reactor, but you have to change that to propulsion, which in air there's no real efficient way. You can't even build a big "gliding" IAV with electric motors due to the weight of the reactor.


Then you have issues if it crashes.

And air might be cold at high altitude, but there's also very little of it as well. so not very good at cooling at all.
 
Cold war treaties put an end to their development, the Thorium engine proposed fir that nuclear car last year would be safe and not too heavy.

I hear a lot of talk on't web about Thorium power stations, apparently the Chinese are proposing to build hundreds of them, could they Safely power the world?
 
Everyone is researching it thorium heavily, and there's already several dozen thorium reactors. The thing is a reactor isn't just classed by its fuel. It how it works as well. There are lots of different types of thorium reactors.

Japan and USA is also highly into thorium research.

Fast neutron reactors are a better medium turn solution. Especially with the worlds waste fuel issue.

Basically we are waiting for fusion and need a ~50 or so year stop gap. which renewable are going to play a large part off.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom