• 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

lpetrich said:
Lithium-ion batteries are about 0.72–0.875 MJ/kg, and lead-acid ones are about 0.17 MJ/kg. The best case for batteries is about 1/50 that of typical fuel hydrocarbons.
Click to expand...
Currently the best Li polymer batteries can store ~1.1MJ/kg and Lead gel 0.36MJ/kg. Still not great but carbon needle technology should increase Li energy density by 3-6 times.

Brian-M said:
Awesome, so liquid hydrogen would make a great airplane fuel!
Click to expand...
Gravimetric energy density (MJ/kg) is good, volumetric (MJ/litre) is poor. The possibility of storing gaseous hydrogen within nanoscale carbon matrices is being explored; it may be safer, simpler and cheaper.

Brian-M said:
Why would you need platinum? :confused:

I suppose if you don't want to replace the electrodes due to corrosion on a regular basis, platinum might come in handy. But what's wrong with carbon electrodes or gold-plated electrodes?
Click to expand...
In a word, efficiency.
Platinum (or rather platinum alloys) are the best currently available to avoid reaction overpotential and significant energy losses, and hydrogen production via electrolysis of water is already quite energy inefficient. Stainless steel can be used but is less efficient. Other materials are being investigated include carbon and cobalt/phosphate (see Nocera's work)

The Don said:
Yes, they investigated its use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Fuel
Click to expand...
The project to replace the Blackbird also investigated liquefied methane, as fuel and airframe coolant.
 
WillyWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...

The XB-70 Valkyrie?

It didn't catch on...
 
lpetrich said:
One needs a high power-to-weight ratio to be a good airplane engine. Keeping weight-to-everything-else down is absolutely critical in designing an airplane and its systems.

The Boeing 777 uses two General Electric GE90 turbofan jet engines. (Orders of magnitude (power)WP, General Electric GE90WP, Boeing 777WP).

Engine power: 75 megawatts (not sure whether this is thermal or mechanical)
Engine mass: 7.55 metric tons (megagrams)

For 777-200:
Airplane empty mass: 134.5 mt
Airplane max landing mass: 201.84 mt
Airplane max takeoff mass: 247.2 mt

About 40 mt per engine, using landing mass, since the plane must land with its engines.
Power/mass: 1.875 MW/mt


After some searching, I discovered: Power to Overall Weight Ratio of the 2013 Hyperion Power Nuclear Reactor
Mass: 20 mt
Thermal power: 70 MW
Electrical power: 30 MW
Power/mass: 3.5 MW/mt (thermal), 1.5 MW/mt (electrical, mechanical)


So a nuclear reactor could just about make it as an airplane engine.
Click to expand...

But that's just the weight of the reactor. You still need to add the mass of some kind of turbines or turboprops to make thrust, plus electric or steam motors to turn them, plus the infrastructure to convert reactor heat to either electricity or usable steam.

Not saying it can't be done, but advanced materials would need to be used everywhere possible to safe weight.

Then you get into the human-needs consumables required for extreme long duration flight, and suddenly manned, winged vehicles make less sense. Nuclear Dirigible Sky Fortresses (strategic mission, or AWACS) or Nuclear Death Drones seem more practical from a mission design perspective of using vehicles that can maintain continuous time-on-station for weeks or months.
 
From the Wired article, titled "Meet the XB-70 Valkyrie, Almost the World’s First Nuclear Aircraft"


"This wasn’t just a hypothetical plan — a Convair B-36 Peacemaker was outfitted with a functioning nuclear reactor and flew multiple test missions in the mid-1950s, several with the reactor running. A huge lead disc separated the reactor from the crew compartment, and the cockpit was lead-lined.

The test flights were mainly used to determine the effects of radiation on the plane and the shielding’s ability to protect the crew — the B-36 was never actually powered by the reactor."
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Then you get into the human-needs consumables required for extreme long duration flight, and suddenly manned, winged vehicles make less sense. Nuclear Dirigible Sky Fortresses (strategic mission, or AWACS) or Nuclear Death Drones seem more practical from a mission design perspective of using vehicles that can maintain continuous time-on-station for weeks or months.
Click to expand...

A few years ago I started some write ups and sketches of a drone deployment airborne air carriers after reading about the Akron (was it the Akron?) back from the thirties. I'll have to see if I still have any of my research laying around about heavy lift and stealth blimps.

I was on an 'endurance aircraft' kick at the time, including some pretty silly looking blimp/plane combos.

EDIT: Yup, the Akron.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
A few years ago I started some write ups and sketches of a drone deployment airborne air carriers after reading about the Akron (was it the Akron?) back from the thirties. I'll have to see if I still have any of my research laying around about heavy lift and stealth blimps.

I was on an 'endurance aircraft' kick at the time, including some pretty silly looking blimp/plane combos.
Click to expand...

Okey dokey, now I'm seeing the Nuclear Dirigible Sky Fortress as an AWACS/Command and Control platform for the onboard fleet of Hydrogen Powered Death Drones. Forward air superiority through total domination of the sky. Alert DARPA.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Okey dokey, now I'm seeing the Nuclear Dirigible Sky Fortress as an AWACS/Command and Control platform for the onboard fleet of Hydrogen Powered Death Drones. Forward air superiority through total domination of the sky. Alert DARPA.
Click to expand...

Yes! And no one will figure out the one weakness of such an outfit!
That it's an easy to hit slow moving heat outputting barn in the sky that couldn't possibly take much damage.
:D

Found my old drawing notebooks, and the sketches were indeed as horrific as I remember. It's like someone smashed together a tilt wing prop plane and a balloon, wiped away the blood, and put it on paper. Damnit I still want a nuclear powered airborn aircraft carrier. If I can figure out a way to put a laser weapon on it, so much the better. :p
 
tyr_13 said:
Yes! And no one will figure out the one weakness of such an outfit!
That it's an easy to hit slow moving heat outputting barn in the sky that couldn't possibly take much damage.
:D

Found my old drawing notebooks, and the sketches were indeed as horrific as I remember. It's like someone smashed together a tilt wing prop plane and a balloon, wiped away the blood, and put it on paper. Damnit I still want a nuclear powered airborn aircraft carrier. If I can figure out a way to put a laser weapon on it, so much the better. :p
Click to expand...

Several batteries of the YAL-1 type systems. Works as a good defensive system.
 
Trakar said:
Several batteries of the YAL-1 type systems. Works as a good defensive system.
Click to expand...

A nice start. That plus the Nuclear Death Drones armed with air-to-air missiles and Anti Ballistic missiles on station at a large distance from the Fortress. Total Domination!!





















Yes, I know, it isn't practical. But it is cinematically appealing in a comic-book mad science way.
 
Last edited:
ApolloGnomon said:
Okey dokey, now I'm seeing the Nuclear Dirigible Sky Fortress as an AWACS/Command and Control platform for the onboard fleet of Hydrogen Powered Death Drones. Forward air superiority through total domination of the sky. Alert DARPA.
Click to expand...

You mean something like the S.H.I.E.L.D Helicarrier in "The Avengers".

One of my favorite things about that movie. I always hoped Marvel Studios would get around to showing that in a movie.
 
dudalb said:
Excuse if I really,really,really, doubt that.
Click to expand...

you are welcome to your doubts, but:

If there were an announcement that there were 500 seats available for a free luxury cruise around the globe aboard a nuclear powered aircraft for the first 500 people that showed up at SFO, I would wager that there wouldn't be any empty seats and they would be turning away many times the number of disappointed people than actually got seats on the flight.
 
Trakar said:
you are welcome to your doubts, but:

If there were an announcement that there were 500 seats available for a free luxury cruise around the globe aboard a nuclear powered aircraft for the first 500 people that showed up at SFO, I would wager that there wouldn't be any empty seats and they would be turning away many times the number of disappointed people than actually got seats on the flight.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between there being 500 thrill seekers (or 1,000 or even 10,000) getting a free world cruise and what you initially said:

Trakar said:
Actually, the novelty (at first) would probably attract far more than it would repel.
Click to expand...

Given that between 33 and 48 percent of the U.S. population are anti nuclear power source and then there are likely to be people like me in the U.S. who are broadly pro nuclear power but who would be very wary of nuclear reactors on aircraft. I find it difficult to believe that more than 33% of people would be attracted by the novelty of nuclear powered aircraft.

In the hypothetical example you gave, some of those people would have been enticed by a free world tour and don't care how the aircraft is powered.

IMO there will be a few tens or hundreds of thousands of people who are aviation enthusiasts, neophiles and even contrarians who would be attracted by the novelty but IMO there would be tens of millions who would not.
 
The Don said:
There's a big difference between there being 500 thrill seekers (or 1,000 or even 10,000) getting a free world cruise and what you initially said:



Given that between 33 and 48 percent of the U.S. population are anti nuclear power source and then there are likely to be people like me in the U.S. who are broadly pro nuclear power but who would be very wary of nuclear reactors on aircraft. I find it difficult to believe that more than 33% of people would be attracted by the novelty of nuclear powered aircraft.

In the hypothetical example you gave, some of those people would have been enticed by a free world tour and don't care how the aircraft is powered.

IMO there will be a few tens or hundreds of thousands of people who are aviation enthusiasts, neophiles and even contrarians who would be attracted by the novelty but IMO there would be tens of millions who would not.
Click to expand...

Again the term "repel" would likely only apply to the irrational nuclearphobes. Do you seriously believe that this fringe position outnumbers the technophiles in our nation? Those who are a bit concerned about such might exhibit reticence or caution, but that is not repulsion. While the technophiles might be offset a bit by the nuclearphobes initially, after the first uneventful flight or two, they would be easily overwhelmed and relegated to a more proper insignificance.

Likewise, there is a big difference between people who are concerned about a nuclear power plant in their backyards for the next hundred years (people concerned about antiquated fission power plant designs) and those who are fervently, and largely irrationally, "anti-nuclear."
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Again the term "repel" would likely only apply to the irrational nuclearphobes. Do you seriously believe that this fringe position outnumbers the technophiles in our nation? Those who are a bit concerned about such might exhibit reticence or caution, but that is not repulsion. While the technophiles might be offset a bit by the nuclearphobes initially, after the first uneventful flight or two, they would be easily overwhelmed and relegated to a more proper insignificance.
Click to expand...

The current furore about GM food, the uproar about vaccines and doubt about global warming indicates that there is a scientifically illiterate group out there and/or a group of people who are simply anti-science. OTOH the number of science enthusiasts is shrinking.



Trakar said:
Likewise, there is a big difference between people who are concerned about a nuclear power plant in their backyards for the next hundred years (people concerned about antiquated fission power plant designs) and those who are fervently, and largely irrationally, "anti-nuclear."
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to support these assertions ?

The polls in question (that rated opposition in the 33-48% range) related nuclear power in general not to a specific incident or design. I've showed you my evidence that a sizeable minority of people are anti-nuclear, please show me your evidence to support your assertions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom