Nuclear-powered passenger aircraft

Konovalov · 10-28-08, 09:27 AM

Read this article in the London Times today.

Quote:

Nuclear-powered aircraft may sound like a concept from Thunderbirds, but they will be transporting millions of passengers around the world later this century, the leader of a Government-funded project to reduce environmental damage from aviation believes.

The consolation of sitting a few yards from a nuclear reactor will be non-stop flights from London to Australia or New Zealand, because the aircraft will no longer need to land to refuel. The flights will also produce no carbon emissions and therefore make no contribution to global warming.

What do you think? Far fetched or a viable future long term alternative for the civil aviation industry? :hmm:

Gotta admit that my first thought was no way. Imagine if the 9-11 suicide attackers had flown nuclear powered passenger jets into the WTC buildings. Add dirty bomb to the mix. Not good.

August · 10-28-08, 09:39 AM

9-11 scenarios are horrifying to contemplate sure, but just your normal everyday aviation accident also becomes something far more deadly as well.

Skybird · 10-28-08, 09:47 AM

Insane. Totally insane. Aircraft happen to fall off the sky sometimes. Imagine. It could lead to the wrong people getting nuclear material. It could lead to wars between nations when the wrong plane has an accident in the wrong place. It could lead to major contamination and damage to the population that minimises 9/11's scale.

Insane. That rocket-scientist figuring this one out should get fired and locked away. He is a danger to the public.

Digital_Trucker · 10-28-08, 09:52 AM

Twice in one day:hmm:, ditto what Skybird said.

Skybird · 10-28-08, 10:09 AM

Damn, second time we agree in just one day. Let's not make it a new habit, I hate to change my old ones.

Konovalov · 10-28-08, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

9-11 scenarios are horrifying to contemplate sure, but just your normal everyday aviation accident also becomes something far more deadly as well.

Indeed.

Might be a good time to open up a nuclear decontamination and cleaning business.

Digital_Trucker · 10-28-08, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Damn, second time we agree in just one day. Let's not make it a new habit, I hate to change my old ones.

Must be a full moon or something

Actually, we agree every day, it's just some days we have to agree to disagree:rotfl:

Now, back to glow in the dark airplanes

XabbaRus · 10-28-08, 12:56 PM

I'd love to see how big the wings are to hold the reactors....

goldorak · 10-28-08, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Insane. Totally insane. Aircraft happen to fall off the sky sometimes. Imagine. It could lead to the wrong people getting nuclear material. It could lead to wars between nations when the wrong plane has an accident in the wrong place. It could lead to major contamination and damage to the population that minimises 9/11's scale.

Insane. That rocket-scientist figuring this one out should get fired and locked away. He is a danger to the public.

Yeah, we should all go back living in the stone age.

Skybird · 10-28-08, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Insane. Totally insane. Aircraft happen to fall off the sky sometimes. Imagine. It could lead to the wrong people getting nuclear material. It could lead to wars between nations when the wrong plane has an accident in the wrong place. It could lead to major contamination and damage to the population that minimises 9/11's scale.

Insane. That rocket-scientist figuring this one out should get fired and locked away. He is a danger to the public.

Yeah, we should all go back living in the stone age.

Now, some more balance in your opinion forming would serve you well, don't you think? Where did I say something of banning flight machines alltogether, eh? Lobbing loads and loads of radioactive material over our heads and metropoles where many of such loads will navigate in close vicinity to each other just does not sound like a good idea. You know the difference between a radioactive contamination and the explosion of a planeload of fuel, yes?

fatty · 10-28-08, 02:27 PM

There were once times when thunder was God speaking, the moon was made of cheese, and splitting atoms would certainly result in the destruction of the universe.

I won't slam it yet. Nuclear power has barely been around for 50 years. Give them another 100 as the article claims and we'll see where they can go for safety and scaling.

Blacklight · 10-28-08, 02:32 PM

My father is a Pratt & Whitney employee and he actually was involved with some of the background stuff relating to the development of the nuclear jet engine (This was back durring the cold war).
They have an long underground tunnel with a railroad track in it that they used to run the engine through out at the factory. He said that it was VERY VERY top secret and they dropped the project because it was too expensive, and very unsafe in the event of a crash. He said they wasted years on the development of it.
He said that the engine was the size of a locomotive.

Letum · 10-28-08, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Gotta admit that my first thought was no way. Imagine if the 9-11 suicide attackers had flown nuclear powered passenger jets into the WTC buildings. Add dirty bomb to the mix. Not good.

Actually, perhaps not so bad.

Without all that aviation fuel burning, the WTC incident might not have been half as bad.

A light sprinkling of radiation isn't so bad. It is certainly preferable to the collapse.

August · 10-28-08, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Gotta admit that my first thought was no way. Imagine if the 9-11 suicide attackers had flown nuclear powered passenger jets into the WTC buildings. Add dirty bomb to the mix. Not good.

Actually, perhaps not so bad.

Without all that aviation fuel burning, the WTC incident might not have been half as bad.

A light sprinkling of radiation isn't so bad. It is certainly preferable to the collapse.

Good point.

lesrae · 10-28-08, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

I'd love to see how big the wings are to hold the reactors....

That was my thought, get on at the back in London, walk to the front and get off in Paris - without ever leaving the ground

10-28-08, 09:39 AM	#2
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 22,667 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	9-11 scenarios are horrifying to contemplate sure, but just your normal everyday aviation accident also becomes something far more deadly as well. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

10-28-08, 09:47 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,504 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Insane. Totally insane. Aircraft happen to fall off the sky sometimes. Imagine. It could lead to the wrong people getting nuclear material. It could lead to wars between nations when the wrong plane has an accident in the wrong place. It could lead to major contamination and damage to the population that minimises 9/11's scale. Insane. That rocket-scientist figuring this one out should get fired and locked away. He is a danger to the public. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-28-08, 09:52 AM	#4
Digital_Trucker Silent Hunter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Peach State Posts: 4,171 Downloads: 141 Uploads: 10	Twice in one day:hmm:, ditto what Skybird said. __________________ RSM-GIEP-Killflags-LV Tribute-Playable Elco __Peace be with you, Dave.

10-28-08, 10:09 AM	#5
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,504 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Damn, second time we agree in just one day. Let's not make it a new habit, I hate to change my old ones. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-28-08, 12:56 PM	#8
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I'd love to see how big the wings are to hold the reactors.... __________________

10-28-08, 02:27 PM	#11
fatty The Old Man Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,448 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	There were once times when thunder was God speaking, the moon was made of cheese, and splitting atoms would certainly result in the destruction of the universe. I won't slam it yet. Nuclear power has barely been around for 50 years. Give them another 100 as the article claims and we'll see where they can go for safety and scaling.

10-28-08, 02:32 PM	#12
Blacklight Ocean Warrior Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,507 Downloads: 142 Uploads: 0	My father is a Pratt & Whitney employee and he actually was involved with some of the background stuff relating to the development of the nuclear jet engine (This was back durring the cold war). They have an long underground tunnel with a railroad track in it that they used to run the engine through out at the factory. He said that it was VERY VERY top secret and they dropped the project because it was too expensive, and very unsafe in the event of a crash. He said they wasted years on the development of it. He said that the engine was the size of a locomotive. __________________ Be my friend or be a mushroom cloud. "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes !"