Nuclear propulsion

[nasser07]

I was wondering what people think about nuclear propulsed missiles. Why hasn't this been tried before? I know there's been some research done on this in the past, before it has been abandoned. But I would imagine they could at extreme distances, since its nuclear and not just burning fuel, and could go much faster since they exert much more energy than conventional solid fuel liquid etc.

 

[ziaulislam]

I was wondering what people think about nuclear propulsed missiles. Why hasn't this been tried before? I know there's been some research done on this in the past, before it has been abandoned. But I would imagine they could at extreme distances, since its nuclear and not just burning fuel, and could go much faster since they exert much more energy than conventional solid fuel liquid etc.

simple after moon mission there is little interst in deep space exploration.....
nuclear propulation can only be used out of earth atomosphere..

 

[Chogy]

Not quite true.

Nuclear-powered B-36

They came close with a nuclear-powered bomber project in the 1950's. It never flew. But in theory, it's possible.

Nuclear Powered Airplanes and Aircraft

 

[no_koadsheding_plz]

Discovery Channel - Nuclear Airplane - Part 1 - - YouTube

watch this documentry,,

main thing is saftey,,how would they contain the radiation if it falls or is shot down?

 

[sputnik]

US is using Nuclear Propulsion system.. I guess the system name was delivered by TITAN rockets for deep space research. Sat. was nuclear powered.

 

[regular]

Yes! it will be far better if the Nuclear propulsion could be used in civilian jets to save money and conventional fuel. This will help reduce the air travel costs too....

 

[mjnaushad]

Yes! it will be far better if the Nuclear propulsion could be used in civilian jets to save money and conventional fuel. This will help reduce the air travel costs too....

And also a soft target with nuclear material in it..... NOT A GOOD IDEA..

 

[CorporateAffairs]

And also a soft target with nuclear material in it..... NOT A GOOD IDEA..

agreed

more deadlier 9/11 will be planned

 

[CorporateAffairs]

And also a soft target with nuclear material in it..... NOT A GOOD IDEA..

agreed

more deadlier 9/11 will be planned

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Well the Carbon fuel that we call oil will disappear in another 50-75 years, USA has its own untouched supply for may be 20-25 years

So after that world will only have two choices

a) Nuclear
b) Solar Energy

As for Space travel deep space , currently humans their bones start self destroying and start to get weak with extended stay in Space , so any deep space travel will eventually create a fragile race of humans if they colonize space unless they can discover artificial gravitation and anti gravity technology to increase or decrease gravity`s effect.

In theory a nuclear enabled space vehicle would operate 200-300 years or what ever is the life of the nuclear material before it decays

 

[Safriz]

well they went for a more practical option..The nuclear submarine..It has been very successful and far safer than a nuclear plane,,as we already know..

 

[53fd]

Would there any risk factor be involved if something is propelled by nuclear energy?

 

[regular]

Yes we need to master the Nuclear fuel propulsions systems so that we can use it whereever we need it...in our subs and our future planes....etc...

 

[Chogy]

The Russians had an atomic plane, but details are very sketchy. The GE nuclear jet engines were ground tested and they would have worked, but they never flew. The possibilities of catastrophic failure were too high, and the inevitability of a crash made cancellation also inevitable.

In the end, the concept died a well-deserved death.

But here's where it is now becoming interesting. Modern technology may make this a viable concept once more. Here's how I think it just might work...

Aircraft in the 1950's were designed to be fast, faster, ever more speedy, and this means HUGE thrust and power requirements. They required people on board, meaning shielding was necessary, and shielding (and life support) is heavy. But today, the emphasis is on unmanned aircraft, with stealth characteristics, and high-lift wings with low drag. It is possible to make an aircraft that looks like a glider that can cruise with just one or two horsepower.

What we might see is an unmanned aircraft that uses electric motors and propellers to cruise, and internally is a very simple nuclear battery type of powerplant. Such a system would sustain flight at 60,000 or 70,000 feet for weeks at a time, gathering data, observing, or delivering weapons if needed. It'd still have the same issues if it crashes, but the dangers would be much less than the insane high-powered nuclear jet engines. I think it's very possible.

 

[Safriz]

The Russians had an atomic plane, but details are very sketchy. The GE nuclear jet engines were ground tested and they would have worked, but they never flew. The possibilities of catastrophic failure were too high, and the inevitability of a crash made cancellation also inevitable.

In the end, the concept died a well-deserved death.

But here's where it is now becoming interesting. Modern technology may make this a viable concept once more. Here's how I think it just might work...

Aircraft in the 1950's were designed to be fast, faster, ever more speedy, and this means HUGE thrust and power requirements. They required people on board, meaning shielding was necessary, and shielding (and life support) is heavy. But today, the emphasis is on unmanned aircraft, with stealth characteristics, and high-lift wings with low drag. It is possible to make an aircraft that looks like a glider that can cruise with just one or two horsepower.

What we might see is an unmanned aircraft that uses electric motors and propellers to cruise, and internally is a very simple nuclear battery type of powerplant. Such a system would sustain flight at 60,000 or 70,000 feet for weeks at a time, gathering data, observing, or delivering weapons if needed. It'd still have the same issues if it crashes, but the dangers would be much less than the insane high-powered nuclear jet engines. I think it's very possible.

but we dont need nuclear power for an unmanned,high flying low thrust plane...
Solar energy is more than enough for that.
Your idea was used in older satellites...before the solar cells were much less efficient compared to modern ones.
Remember the crash of skylab?
People round the world were worried as they thought the flippin thing will crash upon them with heroshima style nuclear explosion
because people were told there is nuclear materiel in the skylab.