Nuclear Powered Aircraft

areksnumbr1sxylady said:
1) Soviets used air as coolant for their reactor so it does work at least.

2) It would be stupid to assume reactors, their structure etc and their coolants have not changed since 1950`s.
Click to expand...

They used it at 41,000 ft? That's news to me.

Who is assuming anything about reactor design? There is an inherent amount of particle radiation produced during a fission reaction that must be blocked, these are simply physical laws. And even lead doesn't block neutrons.

Plus jet engines are combustion engines, you can't just connect a nuclear reactor to one to power it.
 
Last edited:
Scythe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just to add, submarines can cheat - they use the water to their sides and underneath as shielding. If they had to have that shielding built in they would be several times heavier/larger than they already are.
 
Energize said:
They used it at 41,000 ft? That's news to me.


Plus jet engines are combustion engines, you can't just connect a nuclear reactor to one to power it.
Click to expand...

Well, we all know how a jet works, in basic terms its a heater and compressor. Air comes in, is heated by burning fuel, this makes the air expand and it is pushed out of the exhaust at a higher pressure than it entered the engine at.
Similar idea with the prototype nuclear engines, air comes in, is heated by the thermal output of a functioning nuclear reactor, directly or indirectly and pushed out of the exhaust.....So if you remove the combustion chamber there wouldn't be a massive difference.
 
Huge difference though, exhaust from a nuclear engine doesn't get anywhere near as hot, which means far less thrust. Then you have a silly heavy payload, put those two together and there's little use for a nuclear plane, before you even get onto safety.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
Huge difference though, exhaust from a nuclear engine doesn't get anywhere near as hot, which means far less thrust. Then you have a silly heavy payload, put those two together and there's little use for a nuclear plane, before you even get onto safety.
Click to expand...

Im not saying its practical, just that it is possible and proved (at least in a ground test)
 
They didn't Work perfectly they exposed crews to dangerous levels of radiation, and the plane was practically uselessbecause the whole thing was full of giant heavy nuclear reactor.

Plus you know.plane.crashes.
 
malfunkshun said:
Well, we all know how a jet works, in basic terms its a heater and compressor. Air comes in, is heated by burning fuel, this makes the air expand and it is pushed out of the exhaust at a higher pressure than it entered the engine at.
Similar idea with the prototype nuclear engines, air comes in, is heated by the thermal output of a functioning nuclear reactor, directly or indirectly and pushed out of the exhaust.....So if you remove the combustion chamber there wouldn't be a massive difference.
Click to expand...

Look up windscale to see why an aircooled reactor isn't the best idea.
 
Tefal said:
They didn't Work perfectly they exposed crews to dangerous levels of radiation, and the plane was practically uselessbecause the whole thing was full of giant heavy nuclear reactor.

Plus you know.plane.crashes.
Click to expand...

bet you can't just place the reactor furthest from the crew either or it would upset the balance of the plane and make it tail heavy
 
MBennett said:
Just to add, submarines can cheat - they use the water to their sides and underneath as shielding. If they had to have that shielding built in they would be several times heavier/larger than they already are.
Click to expand...

Plus subs also use seawater as cooling. (Massive heatsink there).
Seawater cools the steam back into condensate, which then goes back to be heated up again.
 
ag5n2.jpg
 
Project Pluto - a nuclear ramjet loaded with multiple nuclear bombs, that could stay airborne for years (while dropping bombs and spewing radiation on everything)

 
Planes go really fast through the air, right, so they should stick a couple of wind turbines on them.

Use normal fuel to get to cruising speed, turn the normal jet engines off, and let the turbines drive propellers instead.

Would also be much cleaner & better for the environment...




On a serious note, aren't the Chinese leading Thorium development? Sadly the UK govt basically decided not to fund research in that direction, in favour of newer generation conventional reactors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom