iNow Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 Zeppelins never had any problems... Never? Oh, the humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Pwn_Crackpots Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I think there was a good reason why nuclear powered airplanes were considered only for military use. And they didn't even want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 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. You could put a nuclear reactor's worth of security on each flight, but I still think it would be easier to leave the reactor on the ground and have it generate energy to make "fuel" that could then be used to fly several conventional planes. I'm also a bit suprised that the "we need more guns to make it safer" idea came from the UK rather than the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I agree with John Cuthber, there are just too many problems and you could just as well leave the reactor on the ground. As for advantages beyond fuel availability, the main advantage of dragging a nuclear reactor with you to high altitudes is extended flight time but it isn't exactly the biggest priority in civilian aircraft, unless you're going to the Moon or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 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. Although most commercial planes all fit the description above (tested, shown to be safe) they do fall out of the sky once in a while. And I don't think a "reasonable flight record" is the kind of flight record I'd like to see for any nucular powered device... especially a device flying over densely populated areas. No matter how good a design, there is always a way to destroy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I think there was a good reason why nuclear powered airplanes were considered only for military use. And they didn't even want it. Actually, they did. The Air Force just had a retarded design and a fuel element failure. Result: part of Iowa was contaminated and the Air Force gets no reactors. The Army had a good one too. They wanted a portable reactor to power remote outposts. They were dumb and pulled a control rod out by hand. The reactor went prompt critical and the guy pulling the control rod was nailed to the ceiling by it. Needless to say, the Army doesn't get to play with reactors anymore. And then there's the Navy..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_Pwn_Crackpots Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Actually, they did. The Air Force just had a retarded design and a fuel element failure. Result: part of Iowa was contaminated and the Air Force gets no reactors. Ah, ok then. I'm still not going to ride on one though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Because falling from several thousand feet is so much safer in a conventional airplane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Because falling from several thousand feet is so much safer in a conventional airplane? In terms of the resulting contamination of the area... YES! In terms of the people on the plane.... it don't matter much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 In terms of the resulting contamination of the area... YES! In terms of the people on the plane.... it don't matter much... The fuel isn't very radioactive.........but irradiated stuff......and fission fragments...... 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