Nuclear-powered passenger aircraft - Page 2

Letum · 10-28-08, 03:52 PM

Anyhow, I would exspect a crash proof reactor to be standard. Especialy with all the
weight savings of having no fuel.

lesrae · 10-28-08, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

Anyhow, I would exspect a crash proof reactor to be standard. Especialy with all the
weight savings of having no fuel.

Possibly offset by the shielding required

fatty · 10-28-08, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

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

I bet you the reactor could just be held somewhere in the fuselage to send power to electric motors turning propellers.

Skybird · 10-28-08, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

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

Are you kidding? I prefer 9/11 to loosing a reactor over Manhatten and having it impacting on the ground and cracking open any day. even worse to poisening some tens of thousands of residents: loosing such a plane over a so-called rogue state with the reactor surviving the crash intact.

There are plenty of scenarios imaginable that are far worse than flying a gas-fueled airliner into a skyscraper.

Letum · 10-28-08, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

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

Are you kidding? I prefer 9/11 to loosing a reactor over Manhatten and having it impacting on the ground and cracking open any day. even worse to poisening some tens of thousands of residents

I'm not convinced it would.
Even with a dirty bomb designed to become airborne, most damage estimates
are conservative.
The radioactive material in reactors is certainly not likely to become very airborne.

Quote:

loosing such a plane over a so-called rogue state with the reactor surviving the crash intact.

Now thats more interesting.

Quote:

There are plenty of scenarios imaginable that are far worse than flying a gas-fueled airliner into a skyscraper.

Well, thats the thing about imagination.

Skybird · 10-28-08, 05:35 PM

Some use imagination to figure out how to safeguard against harm. Others use imagination to think they are already safe.

Letum · 10-28-08, 06:03 PM

...and others stick to fact, reason and sound deduction.

Skybird · 10-28-08, 06:18 PM

Aha. Well, the last time I read an estimation of a dirty bomb going off in a metropole like Manhatten, the casualty numbers ranged from 80,000 to 300,000 in i think six or twelve months. Of course after two years the number is even higher.

So much for your conservative estimation.

you may not understand it but I stick with describing a plane-load of cerosine going off and a building collapsing as the smaller event compared to a radiating reactor cracking open and surrounding heat and fire producing radioactive dust spreading over blocks and blocks of a city. Your imagination may be different, but fantasy is free.

Pewh, I cant believe that I am even discussing this.

August · 10-28-08, 06:27 PM

It must be pointed out that such casualty rates caused by dirty bomb would involve the use of plutonium, something i'd think is not likely to be used in a propulsion reactor, and that it would be detonated in such a way to maximize dispersal of the radioactive material over the largest, most densely populated area possible, something that could only happen by the worst of luck in an accident.

Apples and oranges really.

Letum · 10-28-08, 06:41 PM

Even when you try to disperse radioactive material in urban areas, the results are
minimal and unlikely to kill or seriously effect many (if any) people.

There was a excellent Belorussian study in Atmospheric Environment by Vladimir
Reshetin that had a good crack at modeling such radioactive releases from 'dirty-
bombs'. Of course, it predicts very low resultant radiation, even in a worst case
scenario. Certainly not enough to kill out side the immediate blast zone.

In a solid reactor with safeguards and no designed means of dispersion; the risks
are minimal.

Skybird · 10-28-08, 07:35 PM

Letum · 10-28-08, 07:37 PM

RIS?

bookworm_020 · 10-28-08, 08:03 PM

It would make a interesting Crash investigaion! What brought down the plane? Bomb, airframe failure, China syndrome?:hmm:

As for cleaning up an air crash with a nuclear reactor, it isn't just the core you have to worry about, but coolent leaks would have to be delt with as well as the large mass of the reactor causing damage to anything in it path (it will go alot deeper and further than the airframe on impact.

Blacklight · 10-28-08, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Anyhow, I would exspect a crash proof reactor to be standard

My father said that was a major reason they quit development on it at Pratt & Whitney. They COULDN'T make it crash proof.

Quote:

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

As I said in my previous post, my father said that the engine was the size of a locomotive and ran on railroad tracks in a tunnel under the factory he worked at.

TLAM Strike · 10-31-08, 11:03 AM

What about a Radio-Thermal Generator like on the Voyager probes? Not as powerful, Not as radioactive but power for a century of use?

If only we could build a plane that could stay airborne that long.

But I have to say using a nuclear reactor for a passager aircraft is just a waste of a good reactor use it for a reuseable launch platform for space plane launches like in 2001 (the novel not the movie).

10-28-08, 03:52 PM	#16
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	Anyhow, I would exspect a crash proof reactor to be standard. Especialy with all the weight savings of having no fuel. __________________

10-28-08, 05:35 PM	#21
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,629 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Some use imagination to figure out how to safeguard against harm. Others use imagination to think they are already safe. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-28-08, 06:03 PM	#22
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	...and others stick to fact, reason and sound deduction. __________________

10-28-08, 06:18 PM	#23
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,629 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Aha. Well, the last time I read an estimation of a dirty bomb going off in a metropole like Manhatten, the casualty numbers ranged from 80,000 to 300,000 in i think six or twelve months. Of course after two years the number is even higher. So much for your conservative estimation. you may not understand it but I stick with describing a plane-load of cerosine going off and a building collapsing as the smaller event compared to a radiating reactor cracking open and surrounding heat and fire producing radioactive dust spreading over blocks and blocks of a city. Your imagination may be different, but fantasy is free. Pewh, I cant believe that I am even discussing this. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-28-08, 06:27 PM	#24
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,198 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	It must be pointed out that such casualty rates caused by dirty bomb would involve the use of plutonium, something i'd think is not likely to be used in a propulsion reactor, and that it would be detonated in such a way to maximize dispersal of the radioactive material over the largest, most densely populated area possible, something that could only happen by the worst of luck in an accident. Apples and oranges really. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

10-28-08, 06:41 PM	#25
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	Even when you try to disperse radioactive material in urban areas, the results are minimal and unlikely to kill or seriously effect many (if any) people. There was a excellent Belorussian study in Atmospheric Environment by Vladimir Reshetin that had a good crack at modeling such radioactive releases from 'dirty- bombs'. Of course, it predicts very low resultant radiation, even in a worst case scenario. Certainly not enough to kill out side the immediate blast zone. In a solid reactor with safeguards and no designed means of dispersion; the risks are minimal. __________________

10-28-08, 07:35 PM	#26
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,629 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	__________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-28-08, 07:37 PM	#27
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	RIS? __________________

10-28-08, 08:03 PM	#28
bookworm_020 Navy Seal Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Sinking ships off the Australian coast Posts: 5,966 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	It would make a interesting Crash investigaion! What brought down the plane? Bomb, airframe failure, China syndrome?:hmm: As for cleaning up an air crash with a nuclear reactor, it isn't just the core you have to worry about, but coolent leaks would have to be delt with as well as the large mass of the reactor causing damage to anything in it path (it will go alot deeper and further than the airframe on impact. __________________ "There is always one person in any organization who knows whats going on, That person must be fired"

10-31-08, 11:03 AM	#30
TLAM Strike Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Rochester, New York Posts: 8,633 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 6	What about a Radio-Thermal Generator like on the Voyager probes? Not as powerful, Not as radioactive but power for a century of use? If only we could build a plane that could stay airborne that long. But I have to say using a nuclear reactor for a passager aircraft is just a waste of a good reactor use it for a reuseable launch platform for space plane launches like in 2001 (the novel not the movie). __________________