Nuclear-Powered Aircraft

[sreekimpact]

Nuclear-powered aircraft have been looked at from time to time over the history of aviation because of their potential for extremely long endurance and, more recently, their independence from fossil fuels. But they always founder on the real and perceived issues of nuclear safety.

What if there was potential for green nuclear power? Writing in Aviation Week & Space Technology's Imagining the Future issue, NASA Langley energy expert Joe Zawodny says experimental evidence indicates low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology could be an extremely clean energy source.

Recent LENR research dates back to the late-1980s 'cold fusion' debacle of Pons and Fleischmann but, Zawodny says "a growing body of increasingly repeatable experimental evidence indicates the LENR effect is real and is likely not fusion, cold or otherwise." An LENR power source would have enormous energy density, but the ionizing radition produced would be extremely low.

What would such a clean, green power source make possible? Nuclear power was first looked at for strategic bombers, where the attraction was the ability to stay on station for long periods, then penetrate Soviet airspace at high speed and low level to deliver nuclear weapons, all without refueling. Research went as far as flying a small air-cooled nuclear reactor in a modified Convair B-36 bomber (above) to investigate how to shield the crew from radiation.

Times have changed and more recent interest in nuclear-powered aircraft is exemplified by the Airborne Metro concept developed under the 2008 Out Of The Box study conducted for the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE). The concept envisages very large "Air Cruisers" (below) - ultimately nuclear-powered - that would stay aloft semi-permanently.


As these long-range cruisers continually fly looping tracks that cross oceans and take them over major population centers, shorter-range aircraft would bring up passengers and cargo that would ride on the cruiser until they reach their destinations, where they would transfer to other short-range aircraft and fly down to land.

Bhupendra Khandelwal, a propulsion researcher at Cranfield University's School of Engineering in the UK, has taken a closer look at this concept, developing an air transport model (below) that combines nuclear-powered cruisers with chemical-powered short-range aircraft.

Taking off from conventional airports, flying to and landing on the cruiser, the chemical-powered transport would be optimized for take-off, climb and landing, with no need to cruise. This would reduce emissions, says Khandelwal, as the nuclear-powered transport would carry the aircraft to its destination, where it would detach from the cruiser to descend and land normally.

The cruiser, meanwhile, would have taken off from a remote site. This and its extreme endurance, which significantly reduces the number of take-offs and landings, would minimize the risk of a crash leading to a nuclear incident. Also the cruiser would be unmanned, he says, improving safety and avoiding the risk to a crew of prolonged radiation exposure during the cruiser's extended voyage. For further safety, the cruiser would have back-up chemical propulsion.

To allow the conventional chemical-powered aircraft to land on and take off from a nuclear-powered cruiser in flight, Khandelwal proposes using a moving-belt runway (shades of Gerry Anderson). Alternatively, aircraft could hook up to the cruiser using a method similar to aerial refueling, he suggests.

Khandelwal calculates this air-transport model could produce a fuel saving over conventional point-to-point flights of 40% for a 1,000km mission, rising to 85-90% for a 10,000km mission, where the chemical-fueled flights to and from the cruiser would be a smaller fraction of the total.

Nuclear propulsion could be either direct or indirect cycle. In direct cycle, air flows through the compresser, into the reactor where it is heated, and out through the turbine. The risk here is radiation in the exhaust gases. In an indirect cycle a heat exchanger transfers energy from the reactor to the airflow. Radiation risk is reduced, but so is thrust. This is where LENR could come in, providing high energy with low emissions.

LENR represents such an enormous energy density (gigajoules per gram of fuel), and fuel consumption would be so low - the energy from the hydrogen in 40 litres of water could power a 747 half way round the world - that aircraft could be thought of taking off and landing at the same weight, says Zawodny.

But before we get too excited, a huge amount remains to be done before LENR can become a reality. Current devices have extremely low efficiencies and, Zawodny says, "there has not been a demonstration of an LENR apparatus that can reliably be turned on and off at will...When LENR devices work they consume themselves."

 

[Pak47]

I always thought it would be amazing to combine the jet and submarine into one..

A jet that can go directly under water and fire its missiles there.

 

[sreekimpact]

UAV Nuclear Propulsion Concepts Investigated

The military has always maintained an interest in the application of nuclear energy in its operations. In a bid to reduce logistical strain caused by power-hungry bases and vehicles operating over significant distances, some military forces have experimented with nuclear technology to seek potential solutions. However, it is unlikely that such concepts will become a mainstream reality.

In April 2012 American scientists unveiled a radical plan for advanced unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) powered by ‘next generation concepts’. The proposal, titled ‘Unmanned Air Vehicle Ultra Persistence Research’ was jointly developed by Sandia National Laboratories – the US government’s principal nuclear research and development agency – and military contractor Northrop Grumman. The research team noted that the application of such persistent technologies to UAVs would dramatically extend flight times, as well as enable more powerful sensor and weapon systems to be fitted.

The proposal all but established that the team had been experimenting with nuclear propulsion concepts, especially when considering Sandia’s background and the research team’s concern over political sensitivities of nuclear power.

Military exploitation of nuclear power has not always been limited to weapons of mass destruction and large naval platforms. As early as the 1940s, American scientists experimented with a salt-based nuclear reactor concept for civilian aircraft propulsion. However, early designs lacked durability and it was not till 1954 that a stable reactor was built at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union experimented with nuclear technology for its military aircraft, with the same intention to develop intercontinental bombers capable of reaching virtually any target on the planet. American defence contractors at the behest of the United States Air Force (USAF) investigated the feasibility of nuclear powered military aircraft, which was never realised as a result of cost and technical limitations, as well as crew safety concerns. On the other side of the Bering Strait, the Soviet Union also pursued its own nuclear-powered aircraft development. Despite promising results from limited flight-testing, Soviet military interest in the nuclear-powered bomber soon faded in favour of more cost-effective ballistic missile systems.

There had also been an interest in the application of nuclear power for land-based forces during the same period. From early 1950 to late 1970 the US military had investigated the possibility of deploying smaller-scale and portable nuclear reactors in a bid to reduce logistical challenges imposed by energy-dependent vehicles and military bases. For example, a 1963 study submitted to the US Department of Defense (DOD) proposed the use of a small nuclear reactor as the power source for an energy depot.

The proposal, called the military compact reactor (MCR), was an attempt to solve the logistics problem of supplying fuel to military vehicles on the battlefield. While military vehicles could not derive power directly from the nuclear reactor, the MCR could provide power to produce synthetic fuel to replace conventional petroleum fuel. In addition to the MCR, US Army engineers had also successfully operated a series of compact nuclear reactors in remote military bases, and even considered the use of nuclear power overseas to provide uninterrupted power in the event that US bases were cut off from regular supply lines. However, further development of the MCR ceased due to the cost and technical limitations.

Other concepts had been more successful. From 1968 to 1975, the US Army operated a floating nuclear reactor which supplied electrical power in the Panama Canal Zone. Even though it proved its worth, the floating reactor eventually ceased operation due to high costs and the cancellation of the Army’s nuclear research programme.

Civilian And Military Nuclear Incidents
Despite improvements in nuclear safety, public sentiment on nuclear power is generally unfavourable, particularly after a series of high-profile nuclear incidents over the years. Disasters like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the recent Fukushima episodes have sorely demonstrated the perils of operating nuclear reactors, emanating be it from human error or natural calamities.

Military forces have also been stung by peacetime nuclear incidents. In March 2008, the American nuclear submarine USS Houston leaked minute amounts of radiation into Sasebo naval base while on a port call, triggering condemnation from Japanese citizens in the district. In the same year, the British nuclear submarine HMS Trafalgar leaked hundreds of litres of radioactive wastewater into a nearby river while docked at Devonport naval base, raising concerns from nuclear safety experts.

Mainstream Nuclear Power In The Military?
Yet military scientists have not ceased to be tempted by the potential of nuclear power. In response to increasing oil prices and global supply uncertainties, and well-documented cases of logistical strain on forces operating in the Middle East in recent conflicts, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) issued a proposal for innovative solutions in deployable compact nuclear reactors in 2010. In the proposal, DARPA outlined the need to reduce the logistical burden of supplying forward operating bases and forces without access to reliable fuel supply lines. The proposal also suggested that materials science have advanced to the stage where it might have a positive impact on deployable nuclear reactor research.

While recent developments suggest that nuclear power technology can potentially be employed in unmanned aircraft and on the ground, it is unlikely to have mainstream military utility. The Cold War period was an era when general attitudes towards nuclear energy were quite favourable, and military experimentation was only limited by funding and scientific expertise. In contrast, nuclear power today has become a hotly debated issue despite its importance in powering the economies of advanced nations today.

For the military, the problem with nuclear power is not just about cost and safety, but also of the nature of its operating environment. Deploying volatile nuclear reactors into harm’s way on the battlefield, where their destruction and sabotage are likely, should give military planners cause to pause.

 

[airuah]

lol..if they make it ..it would make the ultimate conventional weapon......you cant shoot it down inside your territory coz if you do you end up nuking yourself and making it into a nuke war..........

 

[OrionHunter]

Have you heard of the top secret nuclear powered TR-3B Astra? The TR-3B is Code named Astra. The tactical reconnaissance TR-3B first operational flight was in the early 90s. The triangular shaped nuclear powered aerospace platform was developed under the Top Secret, Aurora Program with SDI and black budget funds.

At least 3 of the billion dollar plus TR-3Bs were flying by 1994. The Aurora is the most classified aerospace development program in existence. The TR-3B is the most exotic vehicle created by the Aurora Program. It is funded and operationally tasked by the National Reconnaissance Office, the NSA, and the CIA. The TR-3B flying triangle is not fiction and was built with technology available in the mid 80s

A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology.

Sandia and Livermore laboratories developed the reverse engineered MFD technology. The government will go to any lengths to protect this technology. The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption. The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent.

Here's the photograph of the TR-3B Astra...

So, nuke powered aircraft have been in the skies since a couple of decades. For what purpose they are being used is a mystery. Remember also the top secret black project aircraft designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works and Boeing's Phantom Works that go frequently into space and back - The Aurora and the Nautilus.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than can be dreamt of in your philosophy.
Shakespeare

Cheers!

 

[danger007]

no one will dare to shoot down it.....

 

[tvsram1992]

lol the aircraft took from India to attack US in the pic .