Nuclear Powered Aircraft

RedDanDoc said:
The A380 Is Nowhere near as heavy as a Nuclear Submarine. Submarines dont need to take off. :D
Click to expand...

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?
 
areksnumbr1sxylady said:
Cant we make a reactor which will not need whole plane filled in concrete and lead to stop radiation? Therefore reducing weight greatly?
Click to expand...

Probably we could but as they say Necessity is the mother of Invention and as we can keep planes up in the air indefinatley as it is there is no need to go Nuclear.
 
areksnumbr1sxylady said:
I dont know, but you can use Air to cool water which in return will cool reactor? Same way water-cooling works in PC`s...

I am sure at altitude air reaches around -40c? I might be wrong. Surely thats pretty cold.
Click to expand...

Air is extremely thin at 11km up so your heat transfer wont be very good, plus you don't want masses of heatsinks sticking out the side of an aircraft, the amount of drag they would create would be massive, therefore increasing the amount of thrust you would need to generate to keep flying.
 
The 'weak link' of any aircraft is the crew and crew fatigue.
Why would you want an aircraft permanently in the air?

A satellite covers most needs for eyes in the sky.
 
Did one of the Japanese industrial giants not have a small scale nuclear reactor the size of a shipping container in development
 
The Running Man said:
Having drones constantly over you're enemy always ready to strike is a huge tactical advantage. ..
Click to expand...

I don't know you.

But I will just hold this knife to your throat......


Just in case you turn out to be a homicidal maniac.

Not good for relations is it?
 
It's what the US does in Pakistan and other countries it's just how the game goes. ..

find a high profile target? Better to have silent Johnny on the spot drone than having to launch an icbm or cruise missile or assault teamm...
 
Team America world police?

Dreadful the conflicts they have gotten themselves into IMO.
And we are (usually) daft enough to follow.

I have nothing but respect for the brave servicemen and women of this country, it's the politicians I take umbrage with.
 
Unbelievably expensive and a massive risk/target to do anything with.

What civilian use is there in a flying nuclear reactor?

What military use is a flying nuclear reactor?

Worst case scenario is it becomes a huge dirty bomb which could land on ANYTHING, so yeah, what's worth that risk.


Massive heavily shielded power stations and long range sneaky subs are not nearly as risky.
 
Last edited:
nXLXToH.jpg
 
With Solar Impulse capable of carrying a person for 24 hours purely on solar power, why would you bother with dangerous nuclear planes?
 
areksnumbr1sxylady said:
I dont know, but you can use Air to cool water which in return will cool reactor? Same way water-cooling works in PC`s...

I am sure at altitude air reaches around -40c? I might be wrong. Surely thats pretty cold.
Click to expand...

Atmosphere is very thin at 41,000ft, not useful as a coolant.

areksnumbr1sxylady said:
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?
Click to expand...

Neutrons have really not changed much since the 1950's...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom