Is Nuclear Propulsion for Civilian Maritime Vessels a Security Risk?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the historical context and challenges of using nuclear propulsion for aircraft, referencing a major research program from about fifty years ago that ultimately failed due to shielding issues. Participants note that advancements in high-energy jet fuels led to the abandonment of nuclear engines for aircraft in favor of more efficient chemical propulsion systems. The conversation also touches on the continued use of nuclear power in naval applications, particularly in submarines and aircraft carriers, while highlighting security concerns related to potential civilian nuclear vessels. The complexities of politics and safety in the context of nuclear technology are acknowledged, particularly regarding civilian maritime use. Overall, the feasibility of nuclear propulsion for aircraft remains a contentious topic with historical precedents influencing current perspectives.
RISHIKESAN02
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Investigate the potential for the use of a nuclear fuel source for aircraft propulsion: If anybody have related document and ideas please post it
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
About fifty years ago there was a major research program to develop a nuclear powered airplane. The problem of shielding was too big and the program eventually died.
 
mathman said:
About fifty years ago there was a major research program to develop a nuclear powered airplane. The problem of shielding was too big and the program eventually died.

Are you referring to the program that eventually turned out the XB-70 Valkyrie?
 
My understanding of the project was the nuclear engines were part of the WS-110A program. The point of the program was to make a long range, high endurance, high altitude and high speed bombers to penetrate USSR airspace. The nuclear engines were abandoned when high energy jet fuel (JP-6) was developed.
 
Nuclear propulsion for aircraft and rockets was abandoned because more efficient chemical propuslion systems were developed, and the thermonuclear warheads were reduced in size and mass. Note that commercial nuclear power for ships was also abandoned, but the navy uses is for submarines and aircraft carriers because of the 'essentially' unlimited range.

Some insight into the politics - http://www.megazone.org/ANP/politics.shtml
 
Astronuc said:
Note that commercial nuclear power for ships was also abandoned,

Actually Russia still has something like half a dozen nuclear-powered icebreakers.
 
QuantumPion said:
Actually Russia still has something like half a dozen nuclear-powered icebreakers.
True, but they are Naval or Coast Guard I believe. I was referring to Civilian Maritime, rather than Naval vessels.

Naval vessels are normally capable of defending themselves against highjacking. It's a security, safety and proliferation concern.
 
  • #10
Astronuc said:
True, but they are Naval or Coast Guard I believe. I was referring to Civilian Maritime, rather than Naval vessels.

Naval vessels are normally capable of defending themselves against highjacking. It's a security, safety and proliferation concern.
Is that a valid concern in your view, given the creation of a civilian maritime nuclear vessel?
 
Back
Top