Are nuclear powered aircraft viable?

[Colt_0pz]

Rather than try to store a ton of batteries, can't we use a nuclear reactor to power a plane? The only time I am aware that this was carried out was about 60 years ago and I ponder if it is possible using modern-day technology.

[desertcomputer]

You still need to reload ammunition.... I think it just impractical, maybe if they build heli carrier but for most plane it just overkill. 

[Damascus]

Shielding needs to be dense and thick to stop radiation.  Dense = heavy.  Heavy  x massive = bad aerodynamics

[GoldenLag]

this was tried in the Soviet Union on a test with the TU 95 LAL. it was just to see if they coul carry the shielding for the passangers. which is really really heavy. keep in mind the TU 95 is still widely used today for its range and carry capacity.

 

the US also tried it, but i believe it was in a B52 bomber, not entirely shure.

 

the issue is getting it to power the props. also there is the issue if the craft crashes anywhere.

 

 

 

there have been design proposals for nuclear turbojets, which can actually work. the only issue is again shielding and also crashing with the engine. also radioactive exhaust is not favorable either. 

 

 

[GoldenLag]

15 minutes ago, Colt_0pz said:

The only time I am aware that this was carried out was about 60 years ago and I ponder if it is possible using modern-day technology.

Nuclear reactors today havent gotten smaller as much as they have gotten more efficient and safer. while possible, the issue with fission reactors isnt the reacot itself, it is the shielding that is required to not kill people close to it. 

[Colt_0pz]

14 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

this was tried in the Soviet Union on a test with the TU 95 LAL. it was just to see if they coul carry the shielding for the passangers. which is really really heavy. keep in mind the TU 95 is still widely used today for its range and carry capacity.

 

the US also tried it, but i believe it was in a B52 bomber, not entirely shure.

 

the issue is getting it to power the props. also there is the issue if the craft crashes anywhere.

 

 

 

there have been design proposals for nuclear turbojets, which can actually work. the only issue is again shielding and also crashing with the engine. also radioactive exhaust is not favorable either. 

 

 

They tried it in a B-36. Perhaps not for passenger planes, but for cargo planes instead.

[Colt_0pz]

20 minutes ago, EMC said:

You still need to reload ammunition.... I think it just impractical, maybe if they build heli carrier but for most plane it just overkill. 

Only once a couple of years. Can do it alongside a C-Check for instance.

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Colt_0pz said:

They tried it in a B-36. Perhaps not for passenger planes, but for cargo planes instead.

even worse as it still needs to shield the pilot and ground crew. it now also needs to get high power to weight ratio to carry cargo. 

 

its sadly not very viable, otherwise the US or the Soviets would have done it by no.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J87

 

turbojet designs were pruposed. its just expencive compared to any other solution. 

[Colt_0pz]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

even worse as it still needs to shield the pilot and ground crew. it now also needs to get high power to weight ratio to carry cargo. 

 

its sadly not very viable, otherwise the US or the Soviets would have done it by no.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J87

 

turbojet designs were pruposed. its just expencive compared to any other solution. 

That's a shame. In honesty, if nuclear innovation did not stop 40 years ago, perhaps it could have been a reality. Reactor designs have not changed that much with most being LWRs.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Colt_0pz said:

That's a shame. In honesty, if nuclear innovation did not stop 40 years ago, perhaps it could have been a reality. Reactor designs have not changed that much with most being LWRs.

innovation is still going on, its just a general no-go with nuclear powerplants. and the only reason most of them are LWR reactors is due to the navy being one of the few that really has a use for these monsters. 

 

designs in converting to liquid salt reactors are being proposed and hybrid fuelcells in current reactors. the work is slow as goverments have no incentive of creating new reactors. 

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, Colt_0pz said:

That's a shame. In honesty, if nuclear innovation did not stop 40 years ago, perhaps it could have been a reality. Reactor designs have not changed that much with most being LWRs.

also new reactor designs wouldnt help aircraft that much as it is still the shielding that is the major issue.

[Amazonsucks]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Compact_Fusion_Reactor

[zeveroare]

2 hours ago, Colt_0pz said:

Rather than try to store a ton of batteries, can't we use a nuclear reactor to power a plane? The only time I am aware that this was carried out was about 60 years ago and I ponder if it is possible using modern-day technology.

Flying around on a nuclear bomb. Great idea.

[shmoochie]

I don't think so tim

[Monkey Dust]

6 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

also consider we'd have a mobile Fukushima waiting to happen ._. small countries would definitely not like to have one landing hard at their airport

Yep. It's why cargo ships aren't nuclear powered, you wouldn't be allowed to dock it anywhere.

 

De-carbonizing air travel isn't happening anytime soon. Investing in, and incentivising, high speed rail when travelling over land is probably the best option for reducing emissions.    

[Bigbootyjudy]

Um... Did I hear a giant mobile nuclear vehicle that can fly overseas to other countries? Sounds like SUCH a good idea.

 

Sarcasm aside this sounds like a political catastrophe waiting to happen not to mention the environmental and scientific aspects.

[CarlBar]

This topic deserves this link: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-madness-of-the-lockheed-cl-1201.219823/

[Mira Yurizaki]

Aside from the fact that the shielding would decrease the payload there's one other problem: airplanes have a tendency to violently crash and explode when everything goes to hell. The last thing you want is for radioactive material to be spread around all over.

 

This isn't a problem so much on naval vessels because even if the vessel sinks, water is an amazing radioactive insulator. Assuming of course all the nuclear material actually sinks.

[NumLock21]

Planes? Nope

Airships? Yes. We need a nuclear power airship.

[Radium_Angel]

12 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

this was tried in the Soviet Union on a test with the TU 95 LAL. it was just to see if they coul carry the shielding for the passangers. which is really really heavy. keep in mind the TU 95 is still widely used today for its range and carry capacity.

 

the US also tried it, but i believe it was in a B52 bomber, not entirely shure.

 

the issue is getting it to power the props. also there is the issue if the craft crashes anywhere.

 

 

 

there have been design proposals for nuclear turbojets, which can actually work. the only issue is again shielding and also crashing with the engine. also radioactive exhaust is not favorable either. 

 

 

If my knowledge of soviet military power holds up here, they flew one for some time....sans the heavy shielding. They used some light non-lead shielding instead, which didn't do much to prevent the crew from radiation sickness....

 

[Crunchy Dragon]

10 hours ago, zeveroare said:

Flying around on a nuclear bomb. Great idea.

Nuclear reactors are designed to not explode.

 

The bombs rely on a very fast reaction to split atoms, reactors rely on a slower reaction that only produces heat.

[Amazonsucks]

4 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Nuclear reactors are designed to not explode.

 

The bombs rely on a very fast reaction to split atoms, reactors rely on a slower reaction that only produces heat.

There would be the possibility of containment vessel failure upon crash/shootdown, dumping radioactive material all over still.

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 minute ago, Amazonsucks said:

There would be the possibility of containment vessel failure upon crash/shootdown, dumping radioactive material all over still.

Different than a bomb, but fair point.

[Canada EH]

15 hours ago, Colt_0pz said:

Rather than try to store a ton of batteries, can't we use a nuclear reactor to power a plane? The only time I am aware that this was carried out was about 60 years ago and I ponder if it is possible using modern-day technology.

So you think that ships can do it, then why not planes. Makes sense. No doubt they have done it, but it is not practical to do so. Imagine a rough landing, that is a no go Lieutenant Pete "Maverick" Mitchell

[Andreas Lilja]

Aircraft don't really need extreme energy independence, especially in this day and age with air refueling.  

 

Regardless of the safety aspect, wouldn't this also massively jack up the price of jets?