nucleair power

Discussion in 'OFF-Topic / Misc.' started by sturmer, Feb 5, 2009.

  1. sturmer

    sturmer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    construction
    Location:
    antwerp
    i was wondering about this for while now. we learned possitive aswell as negative things about nucleair power. we know what can happen with it and we know what we can do with it.
    now to come on topic. we use nucleair power for several things, electricity for houses but also for aircraft carriers and submarines, even for bombs. but why wouldnt people try it for aircraft? okay it can be unstable but hey this is just in theory.
    what do you guys think of it? just think of the possibilities it could have.
    we have pro's and contra's, but it doesnt hurt anyone to discuss a theory :D
     
  2. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,207
    Likes Received:
    790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
  3. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    I would have thought that the initial objection would be the weight and bulk of a nuclear powerplant and the associated shielding. This would almost certainly be too much for any military a/c, and I don't think that members of the public would pay to sit in an aluminium tube with a reactor, no matter how well shielded it was.

    Another issue is how you apply the energy generated in the reactor. In ships and power stations, the energy is used to heat water, creating steam that drives turbines. I suppose this principle could be harnessed to turning an aircraft propeller, but it's a very expensive way of doing it, and you would have to lug a quantity of water around with you, which would negate any weight saving made by not carrying 'conventional' fuel.
     
  4. sturmer

    sturmer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    construction
    Location:
    antwerp
    @flyboyJ: thnx for the link i never new that they already tried it.

    @bombtaxi: okay you convinced me :lol:.
    if it was possible to do, who knows what possibilities there would be not only for the aviation itself but for the spaceprogram aswell.
     
  5. RabidAlien

    RabidAlien Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    6,592
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Hurst, Texas
    Up in Idaho, they tried that awhile back. Lots of reasons were put forth as to why the plane never flew, but the major one cited was "what happens if it crashes or got shot down?" The potential cleanup would be a nightmare. At the same time, the Army was working on a small portable trashcan-sized breeder reactor to provide power out in the field. It didn't work out too well: SL-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  6. SoD Stitch

    SoD Stitch Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Heavy Equipment Rental
    Location:
    Pine Mountain Lake, California
    I believe the Russians tried it, also, in a modified Tu-95 called the Tu-119 but, like the US NB-36, it proved to be impractical and development was stopped.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. andy2012
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    760
  2. sunny91
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,258
  3. bada
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,876
  4. comiso90
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    2,811
  5. VALENGO
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,803

Share This Page