dawson300 Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 Hi, My name is Dawson S and I'm a student from Australia. I'm currently completing a research project into the modern-day feasibility of a nuclear-powered aeroplane (as first suggested in the Cold War). I am to deliver this project in December at the Stockholm International Youth Science Seminars where I will attend the Nobel Prize ceremonies. I am interested in poll results from different community groups and as such I have approached this forum. Please vote above and comment below should you have any strong opinions. I only require opinions; I already have all of the scientific data I require for my project (this is one of the last sections I am to complete). Voting is to be done with any information you can muster, not information I provide. Thank-you for your help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 It depends on how the plane works. If it works like the one the US Air Force made, then NO! If it has a sane design, then yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 As cool as it sounds, the tech is probably easily available - and yet, I've seen some crazy things recently from the pilot community, which makes me hope at least, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 I'm going to say not likely, but I'm willing to be convinced. Basically, there has to be an acceptable level of contamination if you smash the whole thing into a cornfield, and I don't see how that's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 the reactor is going to have to undergo some serious crash testing before i would be comfortable having thousands of them flying around(especially as i live only a few miles from an airport and i'm pretty near the flight path) and i'm talking no release of radioactive material even if its a vertical powered dive from 30000ft and it must be able to sustain heft damage from explosives. now, if we could get a fusion reactor in there... unfortunately that doesn't look as if it will be feasible in the expected timescale. and nuclear reactors tend to resist being made small nad still output masses of power. i think if you have a nuclear powered plane then you're going to have to sacrifice a whole load of cargo/passenger space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 I wonder how much worse 11/9 would have been? I vote NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 it might not have been as bad. if the reactor didn't rupture(as i hope it would have been engineered to survive a crash) then there wouldn't have been a massive release of radiation and there wouldn't have been massive fires. the building could have still been standing as they were designed(and did) survive direct plane impacts. it was just the extended fires on a weakened structure that caused the collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 well when you consider that there have been concerns of terrorists flying planes into nuclear reactors, this would be just giving it to them on a plate! Hijack and Theft anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 The advantage of using nuclear power for a military plane is that you don't need to refuel it often -it's just like a nulear powered aircraft carrier. However, even when we run out of fossil fuels, it's a dumb idea for a civilian plane. The shielding you need to make a reactor safe to be near is essentially too heavy to fly. It simply doesn't make sense to try. If you want to use nuclear power to run a plane, run the plane on hydrogen or methanol or some other "conventional" fuel made by using nuclear energy from a ground based reactor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npts2020 Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 One thing missing from the poll is a no way for any reason answer. With current technology it is definitely possible to build such an airplane. Whether you could carry enough shielding to not give massive doses of radiation to anything on board or nearby and make reinforcements in case of crash strong enough to not spread the contents over a large area seem to be the main technological hurdles. Both at present would probably require more weight than any plane can carry. Even if the weight problem is worked out how much more than the reactor and associated subsystems could any plane carry and could you ever convince the public to allow someone to build it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 There actually once was a B-36 with a nuclear reactor in the fuselage and a good bit of lead shielding. The reactor didn't actually power the plane, but they did show that carrying a reactor was at least possible. However, the question of what happens in a crash is a good one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 Why bother to take the risk? You can leave the reactor on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 it might not have been as bad. It probably would have been better in fact, because you wouldn't have had all the jet fuel to melt the building supports. It would of course, depend on the design, but I can see no objection in principle. It might be infeasible simply because the reactor would be too heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I'm going with the notion that radioactive material does not belong in the sky at high speeds. Why bother to take the risk? You can leave the reactor on the ground.So, a battery powered plane then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 If it's safe enough that they would be allowed to carry passengers, then it's safe enough for me! However, the reactor and especially of the shielding would be rather massive, so the plane would have to be enormous. So the plane would probably have to be confined to a military plane, or, if they can make the reactor crash-proof, a cargo plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted September 15, 2008 Share Posted September 15, 2008 I completley missed the point and voted not likely. This is because I saw the thread title: "Research Poll: Public Support for a Nuclear Powered Aeroplane"... and voted no. The public probably would not support this. However, now that I have read the poll title CORRECTLY!! :- "With dwindling fossil fuels, would you fly on/endorse a nuclear-powered plane?" Then I would vote YES - definately. (I'm not suggesting I wan't to be the first to fly on a test run with the first nuclear powered plane.... F*%k that! ) I'm saying, once tested and shown to be safe, who cares what drives the thing, as long as it flys safely. Once it becomes mainstream and has a reasonable flight record then fine. As for the terrorism worries - then perhaps better on board security for such flights involving undercover armed guards with low velocity firearms to kill the highjackers at the first sign of trouble. Did anyone else make this mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power. That said I'd be extremely suspicious of any attempts to place a nuclear pile aboard an airplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Hi speed nuclear reactors do not fill me with a great deal of confidence... we have enough trouble reliably protecting nuclear waste on trains... Then of course there's the fact it's easier to steal a plane than a building... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 So, a battery powered plane then? Or a very long extension cord. Or, instead of a traditional battery, maybe something with hydrogen fuel cells? I have no idea how feasible the required power output/maximum weight would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I think I'd rather fly in a plane powered by nuclear fission than by hydrogen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I think I'd rather fly in a plane powered by nuclear fission than by hydrogen. Zeppelins never had any problems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Pwn_Crackpots Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 (edited) Are you crazy? I wouldn't want to fly in a nuclear airplane! That is about as smart as driving a nuclear powered car. Edited September 16, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 At least in a nuclear powered car you don't have a few thousand feet of accelerating at 9.8ms-2 before you hit something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Pwn_Crackpots Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 At least in a nuclear powered car you don't have a few thousand feet of accelerating at 9.8ms-2 before you hit something... No, but all those terrorists out there would certainly have a field day in obtaining matryrdom. There would be no need for an airplane to do the job. Or rather, every time there is an accident there would be trouble. I'd rather keep nuclear powered engines inside a large powerplant, thank you very much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 No, but all those terrorists out there would certainly have a field day in obtaining matryrdom. There would be no need for an airplane to do the job. . They wouldn't get a chance due to the increased security there would be on board. i.e. under cover security guards with low velocity firearms. They would be shot as soon as they tried anything. As for crashing - well you could house the reactor in a larger version of the black box on flight recorder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now