• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nuclear Airplane

I saw a sketch of one of these planes when I was a young lad, in the 60's. It was a large delta-winged plane (nuclear bomber) with the reactor in the centre. As far as I can remember, the utility of having a nuclear reactor was to allow the plane to stay aloft for hours or days in a row. A bit like what is possible with a nuclear submarine under the oceans.
 
http://www.aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-american.htm

"The NB-36 made 47 recorded flights between the summer of 1955 and the fall of 1957. All these tests were made operating the NB-36 with conventional chemical power. The R-1 reactor was turned-on on many of these flights, not to actually power the aircraft, but to test and collect data on the feasibility of a sustained nuclear reaction on a moving platform. All the data collected by these tests showed the program managers that the possibility of using a nuclear power plant to provide an aircraft with unlimited operational range was indeed at their disposal at this time. Impressive as the taxi and flight testing were for the NB-36, the complete concept of a nuclear powered aircraft was made irrelevant by advances in conventional aircraft and engine design and the public concern about the dangers of flying a nuclear reactor over their homeland. In the end, after expending no less than $469,350,000 on the nuclear powered program and having a concept aircraft flying, the U.S. Air Force shelf the program in the late 1960s, thus ending any major attempt by the United States to utilizing nuclear propulsion to impulse an aircraft in combat."
 
catsmate1 said:
It would be probably possible to build such an aircraft today, give advances in material science. Whether such an aircraft would have a useful role or be desirable are debatable.
Click to expand...

I'll be they have had useful airborne reactors. Probably to power some star wars devices, lasers, plasma weapons, etc.

Hey, with all the chemistry involved in radioactive decay, doesn't anything produce electrons directly? Nuke fuel cell? To electric motors in your plane?
 
BenBurch said:
Well, if your reactor is separated from humans by enough distance, you don't need much shielding. So think of a multi-hull aircraft like the Burt Rutan carrier aircraft in which reactor is in one hull and people in the other.
Click to expand...
Your hull is becoming radioactive from the neutrons and decay products.

There's still the problem of actually using the energy from your putative reactor to propel the aircraft.
Open cycle turbines spray irradiated material into the atmosphere.
Closed cycle require heat exchangers eating into your payload.
Mechanical or electrical power generation to run props might be the best idea.

BenBurch said:
I'd use nucs to make fuel as a much better way to power an aircraft with nuclear energy.
Click to expand...
That's a far better idea.

ApolloGnomon said:
That's why teh mad scientist prefers blimps.
Click to expand...
GDW had a nuclear powered airship in Twilight 2000.
 
Well, the question of a nuclear battery is somewhat more interesting, perhaps, but again, that would involve short-lived nuclear products (that emit beta captured in a vacuum creating a current). This would most likely involve gamma as a byproduct.

Not sounding good. But given the velocity of the electrons from some beta decays, and how many coulombs are in a mole, ...
 
casebro said:
I'll be they have had useful airborne reactors. Probably to power some star wars devices, lasers, plasma weapons, etc.

Hey, with all the chemistry involved in radioactive decay, doesn't anything produce electrons directly? Nuke fuel cell? To electric motors in your plane?
Click to expand...

Not exactly what you're looking for, but a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator is the closest thing we have right now. For proof of its longevity and power capability, these puppies power the Voyager spacecraft. Yeah, the ones we launched back in the 1970's that are still sending data back from the nether regions of the solar system.
 
Travis said:
Might it be possible to use one of the new smaller reactors to generate electricity for an entirely electric turbofan or turboprop airplane?

It is just kind of a crazy idea I suddenly had and I'm sure there are good reasons no one tries it.
Click to expand...

I like you Travis, but I have to rain on your parade here.

There have been enough advances in materials science, aerodynamics, and nuclear physics that, yes, a nuclear power aircraft isn't out of the question. The problems come up with such questions as is it economically viable?

The answer here is a resounding no. Designing, building, and testing aircraft isn't cheap and neither are nuclear reactors. I'd imagine that combining the two would give you an aircraft that's just as expensive, if not more so, than a submarine. Who would be able to build it, how would they be able to recoup their losses, and who would be able to buy it?

Is such an aircraft practical, logistically speaking? The answer here is another resounding no. Not only would you have to retrain pilots but all the aircraft mechanics and conceivably the entire aviation field from air traffic controllers on down to baggage handlers. Where would the money for the training on the extra safety procedures and such come from? And on. And on. And on some more.
 
Travis said:
Might it be possible to use one of the new smaller reactors to generate electricity for an entirely electric turbofan or turboprop airplane?

It is just kind of a crazy idea I suddenly had and I'm sure there are good reasons no one tries it.
Click to expand...

Well, if we had cleaner nuclear power - say, aneutronic fusion - that wouldn't have the radiation risk and could result in far lower shielding and therefore weight penalties, then yes, this is not only possible, my guess is it becomes beneficial from a pollution/greenhouse gas emissions standpoint.

But look at what's standing in the way: A theoretical technology that's not been engineered in any practical manner yet. I might as well be saying "if we had magic", the only difference is that aneutronic fusion is a known physical process that humankind has so far not yet been able to make work for us. Yes, I might as well be invoking magic since both are similarly unreachable right now, despite the real-world foundation behind one of them.

Fission reactors, I fear, would just require too much shielding to be practical. And then there's the radiation issue. But yes, I've actually had very similar thoughts myself, to be honest: How would we make nuclear power work for us vis-à-vis air travel? The devil is in the practical details. And unfortunately mankind's state of technology is not in a place where nuclear aircraft propulsion makes any practical sense.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Well, if we had cleaner nuclear power - say, aneutronic fusion - that wouldn't have the radiation risk and could result in far lower shielding and therefore weight penalties, then yes, this is not only possible, my guess is it becomes beneficial from a pollution/greenhouse gas emissions standpoint.

But look at what's standing in the way: A theoretical technology that's not been engineered in any practical manner yet. I might as well be saying "if we had magic", the only difference is that aneutronic fusion is a known physical process that humankind has so far not yet been able to make work for us. Yes, I might as well be invoking magic since both are similarly unreachable right now, despite the real-world foundation behind one of them.

Fission reactors, I fear, would just require too much shielding to be practical. And then there's the radiation issue. But yes, I've actually had very similar thoughts myself, to be honest: How would we make nuclear power work for us vis-à-vis air travel? The devil is in the practical details. And unfortunately mankind's state of technology is not in a place where nuclear aircraft propulsion makes any practical sense.
Click to expand...



Mr. Fusion it is then

MrF%20power.jpg
 
casebro said:
Hydrogen has very poor energy density, the whole craft would need to be fuel tanks- high pressure, heavy tanks.

But hmmm, liquid rocket fuel of some kind, using nuke electricity to make? There has got to be something renewable with a huge energy density. Not as hazardous as rocket fuel, because it can still use atmospheric oxygen.
Click to expand...

There are ways to take CO2 and water and make Methane with electric power. Then you can make the Methane into a long-chain Furan and that will burn in an engine just fine and has an acceptable power density.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Fine. Then how about a nuclear robotic drone blimp?
Click to expand...

Oooohhh, even better a nuclear-powered Thermal Airship. No need to waste money on expensive helium or risk using explosive hydrogen, the waste heat from the reactor will keep the airship afloat like a hot-air balloon.

casebro said:
Hey, with all the chemistry involved in radioactive decay, doesn't anything produce electrons directly? Nuke fuel cell? To electric motors in your plane?
Click to expand...

Yes, what you're thinking of is a betavoltic atomic battery. But they only produce tiny amounts of power, nowhere near enough to power a plane. (Unless you use a large quantity of extremely radioactive isotope to power a very tiny glider-like plane with an electric propeller added to it.)

Another way would be to use the thermocouple effect to produce electricity directly from the heat differential between the decaying isotope and the outside air.
 
As far as commerical aviation goes, even if technically possible it is economically unfeasible. I would hate like hell to be in charge of a marketing campaing to get people to buy tickets on a plane with nuclear reactor on board............
 
Ziggurat said:
I'll do you one better: a nuclear-powered cruise missile. Named Pluto, appropriately enough.
Click to expand...

I was going to post that!

______________________________________


Everyone is thinking big, which is nice, but what about going the other direction? How far can an RTG be miniaturized? Could a small drone be powered for long periods of time off an RTG?

Probably not as the don't produce huge amounts of power, but fun to think about.
 
Brian-M said:
Wouldn't the huge amount of weight needed for radiation shielding, water tanks, ect. make a nuclear powered airplane unfeasible for the amount of power required?
Click to expand...

Direct line shielding isn't too bad, protecting from secondaries that are coming in at larger angles is more complicated. Again, depends on the system being designed. Certainly aneutronic systems are more theoretical, catalyzed fission and would need a lot of engineering advancement, how about a simple lox augmented H2 nuclear turbo-ramjet hybrid? (DUMBO 2.5). If you just want an nuclear-powered electric prop plane, how about nuclear batteries instead of a full up fission thermoelectric system, Bulk for the requisite power, but you can knock out a lot of the requisite shielding mass. Large lifting body shape, plenty of interior volume.
 
BenBurch said:
Well, if your reactor is separated from humans by enough distance, you don't need much shielding. So think of a multi-hull aircraft like the Burt Rutan carrier aircraft in which reactor is in one hull and people in the other.

Not that I think this a great idea.

I'd use nucs to make fuel as a much better way to power an aircraft with nuclear energy.
Click to expand...

Bingo

save the flyable nukes for orbital and beyond systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom