First Nuclear-Powered Airliner?

In summary: W.In summary, the article claims that a nuclear-powered airliner is possible, but there are many challenges that need to be overcome before it can be implemented.
  • #1
RooksAndBooks
Gold Member
27
50
The BBC has reported on a supposed nuclear-powered airliner that would fly three times the speed of sound.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160713-could-this-be-the-first-nuclear-powered-airliner

From the article:
A supersonic airliner that flies at three times the speed of sound – and runs on nuclear fusion. Stephen Dowling investigates the challenges of making airliners run on atomic power.

The first sentence of this article already makes me skeptical. It runs on "nuclear fusion." Needless to say, this sounds insane already from the start. How would this even be realistically achieved for an airliner? Also, why would you ever want to fly on an aircraft that could potentially go three times the speed of sound?

A scientist (Dr. Phil Mason) has debunked this with more info; however, there is strong language for those sensitive to it.



What are your thoughts on this article?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
While I think nuclear aviation is a bad idea, I also think you have misrepresented it. You say

Rio Larsen said:
The first sentence of this article already makes me skeptical. It runs on "nuclear fusion."

when in fact the first sentence is "It could whisk you from London Heathrow and have you stepping onto the air bridge at New York’s John F Kennedy airport just three hours later."

Also, it's not like the proponents don't know that fusion is not realistic today, as the article says "Vinals is not dissuaded by the fact that nuclear fusion remains technologically out of reach. Concepts like the Flash Falcon don’t have to be weighed down with the limitations of the tech we have today; part of their role is to imagine what designs might look like using technologies we haven’t yet mastered."

One can be critical of the article without misrepresenting it.
 
  • #3
Vanadium 50 said:
While I think nuclear aviation is a bad idea, I also think you have misrepresented it. You say
when in fact the first sentence is "It could whisk you from London Heathrow and have you stepping onto the air bridge at New York’s John F Kennedy airport just three hours later."

Also, it's not like the proponents don't know that fusion is not realistic today, as the article says "Vinals is not dissuaded by the fact that nuclear fusion remains technologically out of reach. Concepts like the Flash Falcon don’t have to be weighed down with the limitations of the tech we have today; part of their role is to imagine what designs might look like using technologies we haven’t yet mastered."

One can be critical of the article without misrepresenting it.

I was thinking that it was. Is it more appropriate to call it a subtitle rather than a first sentence?
 
  • #4
Wait, Thunderf00t still does skepticism? I thought he was consumed by the GamerGate vortex and spent all his time whining about Anita Sarkeesian and the feminist conspiracy to take over the world one lukewarm artistic critique at a time.
 
  • Like
Likes Ryan_m_b and e.bar.goum
  • #5
Closed for Moderation. There's a surprise...
 
  • #6
Thread re-opened.
 
  • #7
Russia build nuclear Bomers long ago.
it was Very messy! Myasishchev M-50 & 52
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Blacklight said:
it was Very messy! Myasishchev M-50 & 52
According to military and aviation historian George Kerevan (interviewed at 7:49), there never was a Russian nuclear powered aircraft. The M-50 (Bounder) was conventionally powered.

I worked with a manager who had spent time on the ANP.

One could possibly build a small, light, compact reactor knowing what we know today. But there is still the matter of what happens in a crash, which is fairly unattractive.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #9
Astronuc said:
One could possibly build a small, light, compact reactor knowing what we know today. But there is still the matter of what happens in a crash, which is fairly unattractive.
I was about to agree with you, but then I began to wonder what would happen if a nuclear powered plane crashed. I'm not sure it would be so terrible. (In the nuclear sense.) Let's talk about it.

How much power does an aircraft need?
For 787: 6 kg/km * 900 km/hr / 3600 s/hr * 43 MJ/kg ≈ 65 MW

Which fissile material would it use? I understand that nuclear materials have terrific energy density. How is their power density?
For U233: 82 TJ/kg / (160000 years to seconds * 2) ≈ 8 W/kg
By simple division, I'd need about 8,000,000 kg of U233.
That's not happening in the air. But that's also under natural decay.
What about active bombardment? I don't know how to calculate that.

--------
What sort of reactor would it be? I can't imagine using a LWR on a plane.

Also, a crash doesn't necessarily mean loss of containment.


If it is a question of engineering, then I'm sure there's a solution.
If politics, well...
 
Last edited:
  • #10
How much power does an aircraft need?

A rough estimate can be made as follows: for unaccelerated level flight at best L/D ratio, for a mass M and airspeed V, we may imagine that plane with engines off and gliding, under 'gravitational power'. That power will be the weight of the plane times the vertical component of the airspeed, thus (D/L) × V × M × g. The same power will be necessary for level, unaccelerated flight. Of course, for climbing and maneuvering it would be prudent to have some extra power. Besides, the propeller hasn't a 100% efficiency. To be on the safe side, let's assume that we need three times that minimum power.

Let's assume L/D = 15, V = 200 m/s M = 10000 kg. We arrive at 1300 kW for the bare minimum. A realistic power would be 1300 x 3 = 3900 kW

Sounds doable...
 
  • #11
There's an interesting documentary on Youtube about this with Physicist Herbert York...I love to go back and watch it sometimes. I'm all for nuclear aviation. Fusion airplanes are pretty much science fiction right now, though. It's totally possible with fission IMO.



I believe somewhere in the documentary they say that the American plane was the Convair NB-36. It carried an operating reactor on board over 20-30 flights, but was never powered by it. The Russian plane was powered by its reactor, but the Russians did not shield their pilots adequately, and they died 3 years later.
 

What is a nuclear-powered airliner?

A nuclear-powered airliner is a type of aircraft that is powered by a nuclear reactor rather than traditional jet fuel. This technology was proposed and developed in the mid-20th century, but has not been successfully implemented due to safety concerns and logistical challenges.

How does a nuclear-powered airliner work?

The nuclear-powered airliner would use the energy from a nuclear reactor to heat air, which would then be expelled through jet engines to create thrust. This is similar to how traditional jet engines work, but instead of burning fuel, the heat is generated by nuclear fission.

What are the potential benefits of a nuclear-powered airliner?

One potential benefit of a nuclear-powered airliner is that it would not require traditional jet fuel, which could reduce carbon emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. It could also potentially have a longer range and faster speed than traditional airliners.

What are the safety concerns surrounding nuclear-powered airliners?

There are several safety concerns surrounding nuclear-powered airliners, including the risk of a nuclear meltdown or radiation leaks. Additionally, the transportation and disposal of nuclear fuel and waste would also be a major logistical challenge.

Has a nuclear-powered airliner ever been successfully implemented?

No, a nuclear-powered airliner has never been successfully implemented. In the 1950s and 1960s, both the United States and Soviet Union attempted to develop nuclear-powered airliners, but these projects were ultimately abandoned due to safety concerns and the rise of more efficient and safer jet engine technology.

Similar threads

  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
7K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
920
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • Nuclear Engineering
34
Replies
1K
Views
260K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
29
Views
2K
Back
Top