It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1964 photo of a successful NUCLEAR ramjet engine!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Tory-IIC was a ramjet that used nuclear fission to superheat incoming air instead of chemical fuel. Project Pluto produced two working prototypes of this engine, the Tory-IIA and the Tory-IIC, which were successfully tested in the Nevada desert. Special ceramics had to be developed to meet the stringent weight and tremendous heat tolerances demanded of the SLAM's reactor. These were developed by the Coors company, which was then in the business of fabricating porcelain. The reactor itself was designed at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory.

This just takes the p### doesn't it not ? if this baby worked as it says it did, mach 5 aircraft would be a doddle. Just flick the switch and make hay whilst the sun shines so to speak.... I wonder how black this went after its successful test ? Very I would of thought!

Pic here..

img65.imageshack.us...

[edit on 6-7-2007 by D4rk Kn1ght]

[edit on 6-7-2007 by D4rk Kn1ght]




posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
img117.imageshack.us...

Even got a cut away of it.how damn cool is that ? we need them, lots of them for mach 5 stealthy craft right away!



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
According to all research that I've done the Nuclear engines had 2 ways of creating the power one was dirty with nuclear waste that had power the other clean and less power (simplified). They also struggles with enough power to lift the reactor as well. None of my inital thoughts are that this was remotely feasable way of powering aircraft.

The USAF was making head way when the project was cancelled due to the Navys subs and the problems the airforce still had with their powerplants that didn't apply to subs.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
The problem with this type of engine is that it tends to spew out bits of very radioactive material from the exhaust and the "Tory" motor was the proposed powerplant for an un manned doomsday weapon called "Pluto". It was envisaged as a low level multiple H bomb delivery system. It had to be pilotless as the motor would have been so radioactively hot it would have probably have delivered a fatal dose of radiation simply by flying overhead without counting the bits of fissionable material coming out of the back end. Ignoring the potential destruction of the bombs just consider the problems of decontaminating your neighbourhood in the event of one of these babies crashing into your back garden. Even in the warped minds of the Dr. Strangelove era military this was a non starter. Having said that though the potential for producing vast quantities of heat and turning it into thrust is a tantalising concept, I just don't think that fission is the way to go. Fusion power however would be quite a different kettle of fish. Keep banging the rocks together guys!



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Chemical rockets, even fusion will never do the job. You need something like an anti-matter drive or one that taps into some weird dimensional thing like quantum effects.

It also has to be inertial-less. IOW, right now we are limited to using gravitational assists to go anywhere, requiring many, many orbits to bring the Shuttle up to the level of just the ISS.

Inertia-less drives (if they are even possible) would allow flying around as we do in the atmosphere, going straight from point A to point B.

In fact, real 'transport' might discard the whole idea of 'drives' and 'going anywhere'. If one could manipulate 'time' one could just remain stationary, say in a stasis field and let the destination come to them. Thus one could traverse from start to destination instantaneously. In fact one might do a 'reverse or relative stasis' thing where the locality and the traveler inhabited stasis fields, so one could jaunt off to Alpha Centauri and return the same afternoon, or something like that, just by frame shifting.

[edit on 15/2/2009 by Syandos]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by D4rk Kn1ght
 


The rocket engine which D4r_Kn1ght posted was not a ramjet engine. It was a nuclear rocket for use in space. You clowns are all getting ecstatic about this image, but it isn't a ramjet engine and it wasn't even very secret in the sixties because I remember having a book in my possession in the late Sixties with this same image.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Please point out the clowns getting ecstatic over that image.

I see none.

Everyone knows the limitations of fission reactors in aerial craft. Pilot irradiation, isotope discharge, crash hazard, weight.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
they proposed having the Ramjet versions circling at high altitude for months on end at supersonic speeds and even theorized that it wouldnt even need warheads and if it just flew at low altitude the destruction from the shockwaves coming off it would destroy anything. there is a very good history channel documentary that could tell u everything u would ever want to know about it, im sure u can find it for sale on there site somewhere.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by TheScale]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
One other aspect of it is it produced 35,000 pounds of thrust and that is equal to one F-22 engine today. In 1960 the F4 engines were 16,000 pounds each.

So the only big advantages I can see here is maybe how long its fuel would last, and the ability to operate in space. The actual thrust I do not see as a hugh advantage over a typical JP-4 fuel type engine.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Syandos
 



I think you are jumping many steps in space travel here.

I would think long before your ideas are even capable we will have ships for 1000s of years that are basically one way arcs with engines that have a very long or endless thrust. This would mean when you head to another star 1/2 of the trip for 100s of years is accelerating and the other 1/2 of the trip the ship turns its engines 180 degrees and is decelerating. This would most likely be a long term engine of either fusion or sails as a first step, then maybe anti-matter.

So the #1 priority would be an endless or very long term (centuries) power supply.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheScale
they proposed having the Ramjet versions circling at high altitude for months on end at supersonic speeds and even theorized that it wouldnt even need warheads and if it just flew at low altitude the destruction from the shockwaves coming off it would destroy anything. there is a very good history channel documentary that could tell u everything u would ever want to know about it, im sure u can find it for sale on there site somewhere.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by TheScale]


What would the craft be made out of? Even if you had an engine that could do this the heat would destroy the craft. An SR71 coolest spot flying at extreme altitudes is its windshield at 600F, so the closer you get to the ground the hotter it would be.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
im not sure if they ever made it that far into the design since it became unfeasible with the amount of radiation coming off it but they said that the weight of the vehicle would be equal to a locomotive engine, plus the ceramic heating array was extremely fragile and if u lost those it would emit massive amounts of radiation. also commenting on the nuclear rocket engines; They arent very different from normal rocket motors. they still use fuel but the reactor heats this fuel up typically hydrogen, therefore increasing the thrust greatly while making it radioactive. if youve ever seen the exhaust that comes out from one launch u can imagine the disastrous effects this would have. also the project name of the nuclear ramjet was "project pluto" which was conducted on jackass flats at nevadas test site. fitting place to test that idea LOL






[edit on 18-2-2009 by TheScale]

[edit on 18-2-2009 by TheScale]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
A recent "Great Planes" episode discussed these engines on the Military Channel. Do a search on your DVR you may still get a replay. If I determine what airplane ws featured I will post it.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheScale
they proposed having the Ramjet versions circling at high altitude for months on end at supersonic speeds...


Not for months on end. The "Project Pluto" nuclear ramjet cruise missile was to fly at Mach 3 at a few hundred feet altitude. Longest ranged versions would go about 90,000 miles before the reactor was too badly damaged to continue; that's about a day and half flight time. However, they almost certainly wouldn't fly that long. They would probably be crashed into specific targets. See here for more:
www.up-ship.com...

There were plans for nuclear powered bombers that could stay airborne for extende lengths of time; they would orbit safe areas at subsonic speeds, awaiting orders to proceed to targets. Even they, using nuclear turbojets rather than nuclear ramjets, would stay airborne for no more thandays toa few weeks. The crews woudl go buggo, never mind die of cancer.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

What would the craft be made out of?


Vought designed the Pluto to be made from high temperature alloys such as stainless steel and Inconel. Interestingly, the forward 2/3 or so of the airframe would be coated in gold... this would help to reflect some of the incident radiant aerothermal heating, and would help distribute the rest of it around due to its high thermal conductivity.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join