miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) (11/04/89)
From: "Stephen D. Grant" <miles@ms.uky.edu>
Hi folks. While absorbing some concepts in my national security class,
it was mentioned that back in the 60's the concept of a nuclear powered
aircraft was on the drawing board. However there seemed to be some problem
with putting a reactor aboard an aircraft. (Something to do with the weight
of the reactor?) Can anyone else add to this topic as to why such a
development is not possible, or cite any research that has been done with
Nuclear Powered aircraft?
Thanks
Miles
=============================================================================
"I've had a few optional extras installed.." - 007
Stephen D. Grant, "Miles" "Go ahead - It's your Quarter." -Me.
miles@s.ms.uky.edu
============================================================================= henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/06/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: "Stephen D. Grant" <miles@ms.uky.edu> >it was mentioned that back in the 60's the concept of a nuclear powered >aircraft was on the drawing board. However there seemed to be some problem >with putting a reactor aboard an aircraft... The idea continues to percolate in a small way. A few years ago I saw a design sketch of a nuclear-powered fighter (!). The problems are still roughly the same as they were when the original nuclear-aircraft ideas were abandoned. Adequate shielding for the crew weighs an awful lot. Keeping shielding weight within the bounds of sanity requires shielding *only* the crew, i.e. the nose, which makes servicing etc. very awkward. There are serious problems with the aftermath of crashes... and *all* military aircraft crash sometimes. And in general, the complications and weight penalties don't seem worth the range and endurance increase. Back in the 40s and 50s, the idea did look worth pursuing. But more conventional jet aircraft got a lot better pretty quickly, and flight refuelling extended their range quite effectively. Turbofan engines were the death blow; the B-52H, with early turbofans, has endurance of 24+ hours and range of 12000+ miles *without* refuelling. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) (11/06/89)
From: nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) >From: "Stephen D. Grant" <miles@ms.uky.edu> >it was mentioned that back in the 60's the concept of a nuclear powered >aircraft was on the drawing board. However there seemed to be some problem >with putting a reactor aboard an aircraft. (Something to do with the weight The biggest technical problem was the weight of the shielding. The non-technical problems should be easy to imagine, but I'll mention two: The capital cost of the plane limited the number that could be built, and the Navy had a strong nuclear propulsion recruiting and training program that the AF would have had to compete with for the qualified candidates. The idea was ultimately dropped when in-flight refueling was shown to be tactically feasible. It has the advantage of using one basic system to extend the range and loiter time of all platforms, and of making smoking, as opposed to glowing, holes when something goes wrong. You have to remember that the public and scientific appreciation for the dangers of radiation did not happen all at once. Between the time the idea of a nuclear powered aircraft became marginally practical and the time it was ready to think about deployment our ideas about nuclear power changed radically. The history of in-flight refueling is pretty colorful. An article in one of the early issues of Air&Space described an endurance record effort in the '30s in which the test plane, a Ford tri-motor I think, was refueled by passing a hose from a hole in the floor of another plane and catching it from a hatch in the cabin roof of the Ford. But it wasn't clear that it could be done as a routine component of military missions until fairly recently. Once that was proven the disadvantages of nuclear propulsion left little room for continued development. As a side note, the idea of a nuclear-heated balloon has been floating around in sci.space recently as a possible configuration for exploring the gas giants. One could imagine nuclear propulsion making a comeback in the context of the radar balloons being deployed in the War on Drugs, or perhaps for a flying command post in a worst case nuclear war scenario. -- Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services uunet!nuchat!steve POB 270249 Houston, Texas 77277 (713) 964 2462 Consultation & Systems, Support for PD Software.
melkor@wpi.wpi.edu (The Lord of Mordor) (11/06/89)
From: melkor@wpi.wpi.edu (The Lord of Mordor) In article <11113@cbnews.ATT.COM> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes: >development is not possible, or cite any research that has been done with >Nuclear Powered aircraft? Back in the late 50's through the 60's the AF toyed with the idea of an A-plane, but several problems, both technical and political stopped it's development. Technically, they could not come up with a safe enough shielding that could still takeoff. Secondly, political pressures and considerations, (such as, "I don't want to be in office if radioactive stuff falls on my constituents!"), not to mention non nuclear countries, (imagine the problems we have with New Zealand and our nuke ships and other countries with our warplanes), totally blackballed the project. There was a definitive article on the A-plane in Scientific American a few years ago. melkor@wpi.wpi.edu (skippy sez:)"I DIDN'T SAY IT, IT WAS MY EVIL TWIN, GEORGE BUSH"
gardiner@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (David Gardiner) (11/06/89)
From: gardiner@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (David Gardiner) I had a professor who worked on that project. He stated that the project was doomed from the beginning for the following reason. The supporters of the nuclear plane stated that the chances of people being harmed by radiation from one of the planes crashing was minimal due the such a small portion of the Earth's surface being populated. The problem with this line of reasoning was that the statistical distribution of a group of airplanes' time in flight is not uniform over the globe. A higher percentage is over populated areas than un-populated areas. Furthermore, takeoffs and landings, the point in flight where virtually all crashes occur, are always over populated areas. Thus WHEN one the planes crashed, it would most likely crash into a populated area. I am not sure whether this is the official line on why the program was cancelled, though. David Gardiner U of Minnesota Computer Science Department
pierson@cimnet.dec.com (11/07/89)
From: pierson@cimnet.dec.com > >Hi folks. While absorbing some concepts in my national security class, >it was mentioned that back in the 60's the concept of a nuclear powered >aircraft was on the drawing board. However there seemed to be some problem >with putting a reactor aboard an aircraft. (Something to do with the weight >of the reactor?) Can anyone else add to this topic as to why such a >development is not possible, or cite any research that has been done with >Nuclear Powered aircraft? > >Thanks >Miles Running, as usual, from memory... Both the US and the Soviet Union had extensive programs to develop nuclear fission powered a/c. The Soviets (reportedly) actually flew one. The US flew and operated a test reactor in a B36(?). The concerns (US Side) were more around safety than reactor weight per se. When there was a crash, there would have been extensive release of fission products. (There are a number of maxims about flight safety involving planning for WHEN you crash. not IF, When....). There were other problems, providing adequate shielding for crew, surrounding population (near the base...), and turning the power from the reactor into useful thrust. Most systems for THAT seemed to involve multiple conversions of the energy (and hence, inefficiency). I have a "fun" book (title escapes me...) from the late '50s/early '60s that was a quasi governmental public relations effort for the program. A good library, or luck in a used book store is recommended. The "mission" was also unclear, bar just doing the plane for the challenge, and because this was the era of the nuclear powered rocking chair (almost). The ability for a strategic force to be on-the-air "constantly" avoiding being hit on the ground, and the elimination fuel problems on strategic missions come to mind. thanks dave pierson |The facts as accurately as i can remember, Digital Equipment Corporation |The opinions, my own. 600 Nickerson Rd Marlboro, Mass 01742 pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com
steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) (11/08/89)
From: nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >were abandoned. Adequate shielding for the crew weighs an awful lot. >Keeping shielding weight within the bounds of sanity requires shielding >*only* the crew, i.e. the nose, which makes servicing etc. very awkward. My father-in-law has done several "nucular" things, including sitting on a NRC lisencing board for a while. I asked him about this and sure enough he knew a bit about it. He even told me some of what he knew about it :-) Anyway, a point that hasn't been mentioned is that having only the crew shielded meant that the bad guys could throw away all those IR and semi-passive radar missile guidance systems. Forget stealth, radio silesnce, all that good stuff. Might as well go in with bullhorns blaring your favorite inspirational music because you aren't going to surprise anyone with a geiger counter. He indicated that the scientists working on the project were baffled by the beurocratic mentality that thought there was any point in working on the idea. Nevertheless, a plane did fly with a reactor on board. It may or may not have been producing power at the time but it was a functional reactor. It didn't fly very many times though and apparently never without at least some chemical propulsion. -- Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services uunet!nuchat!steve POB 270249 Houston, Texas 77277 (713) 964 2462 Consultation & Systems, Support for PD Software.
jlk@boron.siesoft.co.uk (Jim Kissel) (11/11/89)
From: Jim Kissel <jlk@boron.siesoft.co.uk>
Dr. Richard (Dick) Feynman is the orginator of the nuclear powered
plane. Back in the early 40's while he was working on the bomb
the goverment wanted to patent "ALL" the nuclear "ideas" and he
was told to submit a patent for a nuclear powered plane. Details
can be found in his book "Surely you must be joking Mr Feynman"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kissel Telephone +44 734 691994
Siemens plc 734 443046 (Direct line)
Systems Development Group Fax +44 734 698847
65-73 Crockhamwell Rd. Telex 846053 SIESOF G
Woodley, Reading Domain jlk@siesoft.co.uk
Berkshire, RG5 3JP j.kissel@xopen.co.uk
Great Britain UUCP ....{ukc,athen}!siesoft!jlk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------jwm@stda.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (11/17/89)
From: jwm@stda.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) }From: pierson@cimnet.dec.com }There were other problems, providing adequate shielding for crew, surrounding }population (near the base...), and turning the power from the reactor into }useful thrust. Most systems for THAT seemed to involve multiple conversions of }the energy (and hence, inefficiency). I have a "fun" book (title escapes }me...) from the late '50s/early '60s that was a quasi governmental public }relations effort for the program. A good library, or luck in a used book }store is recommended. See "Nuclear Flight". I don't recall the author. One of the more interesting problems was protecting the ground crew. The plane could heft the shadow shielding for the crew, but the surroundings were irridiated. }The "mission" was also unclear, bar just doing the plane for the challenge, }and because this was the era of the nuclear powered rocking chair (almost). }The ability for a strategic force to be on-the-air "constantly" avoiding being }hit on the ground, and the elimination fuel problems on strategic missions }come to mind. Turns out you can make a real, real fast and real real small aircraft carrier with the same dimensions. A few fighters anywhere fast... -- "In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain" - Pliny the Elder These were the opinions of : jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET