The nuclear powered Airplane

I have been on a kick with documentaries dealing with aircraft, and other science subjects. I came across this interesting subject. There are 2 types the direct, and indirect nuclear powered engine. The direct take the air through the reactor and heats it up instead of fuel heating up compressed air. The indirect has another chamber heating up the air in an adjacent compartment. We never got it flying due to presidential interference, but the soviets did get one flying. The only difference we had the shielding for the pilots. The soviets did not. Only 3 survived in 44 flights. We had all the research, and engine, but the plane was never fit with the engines (as far as the public knows). Mostly because the airforce favored the direct, and the navy went with the indirect. The navy canceled due to having nuclear powered subs.

Anyway here is the video hope you enjoy.

People were horrified at the possibility of one of the nuclear B-36s crashing in their neighborhoods. Sooner or later one would have too, and it would have been a disaster.

Sssshhh better not tell them of the high altitude Nuke blast testing everyone did in the upper atmosphere..Starfish Prime...

Often wondered why they never researched / developed it more .
With current miniaturization and tech theres some interesting possibilities for using it in aircraft .

a reply to: Zaphod58

What's the difference than a clean non direct nuclear engine, and a bomb. Both have material that is radioactive. Only one never needs refueled.

a reply to: Crumbles

Bombs are cleaner, and aren't flying around overhead anymore.

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Often wondered why they never researched / developed it more .
With current miniaturization and tech theres some interesting possibilities for using it in aircraft .

For the same reason there aren't large nuclear powered privately owned ships (with few exceptions). They didn't want them to be a target.

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Often wondered why they never researched / developed it more .
With current miniaturization and tech theres some interesting possibilities for using it in aircraft .

For the same reason there aren't large nuclear powered privately owned ships (with few exceptions). They didn't want them to be a target.

A couple years ago Boeing came out with a fusion-fission engine patent.

They used lasers to initiate a fusion of deuterium-tritium which generates fast neutrons and heat. They plan to focus the heat out the back through a nozzle providing thrust. The fast neutrons fly into a fissionable shield surrounding the fusion point generating more heat which is then converted to electricity to run systems and the lasers. (I think that is the whole thing. It is kind of crazy and I don't think that spitting out possible radioactive material while jetting around is a very smart idea no matter how it is done).

Arstechnica.com - Boeing patents laser-powered fusion-fission jet engine (that’s truly impossible)

The newest tech is jet plasma engines. Truly new and have been only made as demo/POC size (small) but if they can scale them up or be able to control multiple engines at once then who knows?

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: Zaphod58

What's the difference than a clean non direct nuclear engine, and a bomb. Both have material that is radioactive. Only one never needs refueled.

The US did full on runups testing a nuclear ramjet that was to be the engine for Project Pluto a nuclear powered cruise missile. The reactor/engines Tory IIC spewed so much radiation that they had to take it out of its concrete shed using a remote controlled train. en.wikipedia.org...

The big difference is how the radiation is delivered. The engine (I doubt it would be clean) will spew radiation in its flight path. Airborne reactors do not have the shielding you see on the ground because lead etc is super heavy and you would never get the plane off the ground. The crew sat in an over 10 ton cockpit just to protect them . The engine like the flying reactor it is is a nuclear reaction under control. This radiation would be spread all over the globe by the winds etc.

A bomb on the other hand is in effect a runaway chain reaction that gives you alot of heat, over pressure, fallout to which the degree depends on ground vs. airburst, and alot of radiation in a short period of time. But aside from the fallout its more or less located at ground zero.

A bomb

It blasted fission products everywhere. Not a good idea.

originally posted by: Chromium51

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Often wondered why they never researched / developed it more .
With current miniaturization and tech theres some interesting possibilities for using it in aircraft .

For the same reason there aren't large nuclear powered privately owned ships (with few exceptions). They didn't want them to be a target.

Except for the floating, Russian nuclear power plant barges!
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: FredT

The Pluto missile's exhaust plume would irradiate anyone below its flight path with a lethal dose of radiation as it zipped toward its target!

Why not just have the turbine power the whole plane and then some