Designing a nuclear powered aircraft that shields the crew from radiation sickness?

[Skroe]

This is from memory, so I could be wrong, but a parallel space program during the 1960s and 1970s to utilize "breakthrough" propuslion technology developed a design for an extremely survivable nuclear reactor for use in space. As I recall, the understanding was that Rockets could only take us to the moon, but a Nuclear Thermal Rocket would be required to take us to Mars and beyond (or so the thought was at the time), and the two projects to this end were NERVA and Project Orion, NERVA being the more substantial one.

NERVA developed and produced real amounts of flight-ready hardware and had many tests on it's viable design, but Nixon, no lover of space, canceled it. As I recall, the reactor engine was designed to fall through the atmosphere in a catastrophic accident and not explode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

A nuclear aircraft is a solution without a problem, but more broadly, nuclear vehicles are the best way to do planetary exploration. Or does one expect any Mars or Lunar Colony to rely on Solar Power? A small, highly reliable reactor strikes me as a prerequisite.

[Hooked]

They could make a death star.

[DEATHETERNAL]

have it be remote control

This. Why shield the crew when there is no logical reason to have a crew at all when the presence of the crew creates such a problem? Remove the crew, remove the issue. If you really want a nuclear aircraft, there is no valid reason for such.

[Skroe]

This. Why shield the crew when there is no logical reason to have a crew at all when the presence of the crew creates such a problem? Remove the crew, remove the issue. If you really want a nuclear aircraft, there is no valid reason for such.

A nuclear drone? It has to happen, just for us to experience the batshit crazy response. Predators drive people nuts as is.

Or how about a nuclear-powered drone landing on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

The possibilities are endless.

[Notchris]

Oh Cold War you generated some pretty crazy things.

Now a days though? This would be a suicide bombers wet dream.

[Verain]

Make it unmanned.

Nuclear submarines? Works great. I just think that the shielding is going to be an issue no matter what there.

[Deamon002]

Depends a lot on the reactor, but the biggest issue I'm coming up with a nuclear powered aircraft - it doesn't get enough water to actually funnel the energy away. Every other controlled nuclear reaction basically uses water to channel the heat generated into mechanical energy, and you don't get enough ambient water while flying to do so.

Flying nuclear aircraft is pointless unless you somehow can get a direct nuclear energy -> mechanical energy conversion without huge amounts of a coolant/fluid.

Assuming I remember correctly, it uses air - in fact, that was the entire point of the nuclear engine. It takes in air, pipes it through the reactor, heating it - a lot - then throws it out the back to produce thrust. The reactor basically takes the place of the combustion chamber in a conventional jet engine.

The problem with piping air through the core of a nuclear reactor were concerns that the exhaust would be heavily radioactive. Another approach being looked at at the time was the indirect cycle: use liquid metal to carry away heat from the reactor, them use that hot metal to heat the air. Less radiation, but much more complicated.

[Laize]

Fix me if I am wrong but if you place a nuclear reactor on a jet isn't it just a fancier nuclear bomb?

No. Nuclear reactors have safeguards engineered into them specifically to prevent them from becoming nuclear bombs. That's why even Chernobyl's explosion wasn't considered nuclear.

[PACOX]

I guess the problem is aerodynamics and if there is a real need for such a thing. At this point in time there is just no need for them. Even though our planes rely on oil, they will always get it as long as there is still oil left in the ground. We aren't running super long flights like we used to during the Cold War. Way left field into dreamwold here, lets say the reactor puts out enough power that we could build some type of air platform/carrier type thing. The world wouldn't be too pleased with the US at all. Cold War 2.

We could place them in drones but drones aren't exactly hurting for power.

Not stealthy enough to go in our jets.

Paranoia about nuclear technology would keep them out of any other airplane. We barely have nuclear power plants and the thing in Japan isn't helping out that cause.

World just isn't ready.

[Bakis]

Actually, a lot of the USAF photo recon is still done by aircraft (both manned and unmanned).

Still no upside of a heavy as hell lead/nuclear airplane given the cost and risk.
The costs would be able to uphold the current setup for I dunno, a few decades

[Bepples]

the problem is the only thing i know of that stops all radiation a through g, is lead, and its not light. well actually its gamma which goes through everything but lead, although that is the worst of them all.

In terms of ionizing power, α>β>γ, but in terms of penetration power γ>β>α. A stray helium nucleus (α) can do a lot more damage than high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (γ) but it doesn't get very far.

[Laize]

In terms of ionizing power, α>β>γ, but in terms of penetration power γ>β>α. A stray helium nucleus (α) can do a lot more damage than high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (γ) but it doesn't get very far.

"Doesn't get very far" is an understatement.

Paper is an effective alpha radiation shield. Your SKIN is an effective alpha radiation shield.

[Heathy]

yeah i didn't want to elaborate too much but you learn this in basic science, there are better shielding elements but they aren't as common as lead, its simply the cheapest way to shield from radiation. i was wondering what tungsten would be like or even heavier elements but the cost would be quite substantial.

[Deleted]

I guess the problem is aerodynamics and if there is a real need for such a thing. At this point in time there is just no need for them. Even though our planes rely on oil, they will always get it as long as there is still oil left in the ground. We aren't running super long flights like we used to during the Cold War. Way left field into dreamwold here, lets say the reactor puts out enough power that we could build some type of air platform/carrier type thing. The world wouldn't be too pleased with the US at all. Cold War 2.

We could place them in drones but drones aren't exactly hurting for power.

Not stealthy enough to go in our jets.

Paranoia about nuclear technology would keep them out of any other airplane. We barely have nuclear power plants and the thing in Japan isn't helping out that cause.

World just isn't ready.

France gets like 78% of it's power from nuclear power plants. No real issues there.

[Itakas]

World just isn't ready.

World will never be rdy for anything that uses nuclear fission, since the amount of bad side effect it has is too huge. Sure we are using it atm, but only because we are stupid and mostly dont care how big we screw up the planet and our own future.

[poser765]

World will never be rdy for anything that uses nuclear fission, since the amount of bad side effect it has is too huge. Sure we are using it atm, but only because we are stupid and mostly dont care how big we screw up the planet and our own future.

Ironically I think it is exactly because we DO care about not screwing up the planet that we have the fission power infrastructure that we do. lol, I guess we could go back to burning coal...that is clean and efficient!

[Deamon002]

World will never be rdy for anything that uses nuclear fission, since the amount of bad side effect it has is too huge. Sure we are using it atm, but only because we are stupid and mostly dont care how big we screw up the planet and our own future.

It's unthinking hysteria like this that's the reason we're still using unsafe reactor designs half a century old while inherently safe designs have been on the drawing board for decades. Every time someone tries to build one of the new types, idiots everywhere scream like gelded hexapumas at the word 'nuclear', while at the same time whinging about how we're burning way too much coal.

Yeah, nuclear waste is a problem. You know what, so's climate change. And I'm pretty sure figuring out what to do with a few thousand tonnes of nuclear waste is easier than filtering a few billion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

An extra irony is that coal contains trace amounts of radioactive materials, which end up in the air when it's burned. A coal-fired power plant exposes the population to about a hundred times the radiation a nuclear plant of the same output does.

[Itakas]

I was only pointing out that atm nuclear power can and has caused a crap ton of problem. I do not rly care who build what and where, but since you went there, calling unthinking hysteria or what not when we speak about things that nuclear power did (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chenobyl, Fukushima, etc... - sure first two were weapons, but still powered by nuclear power so its even worse)and yet you are going on a premises that co2 is actually doing something bad to earth. There is no 100% proof that its causing global heating, its only speculations and theories, and to every global heating caused by co2 theory there is one that says otherwise. So before pointing out fingers about hysteria, should check your own hysteria first.

Now as far as i know, there is still no known way of removing radiation from radioactive waste, only way is to store, so if you have a 100% proven way of getting rid of radioactive waste, plz do share it, and i do not mean storing it in a barrel for xxxx years until it fully disperses.

Again sure maybe it does radiate more and by no mean am i saying coal plants are healty, but there is a big diff in what type of element is radiating. Since every element known to man kind from periodic table radiates and there is diff types of radiations, i dont rly wanna explain it all now, cba rly, if you know what i am talking about you will understand if you dont know what i am talking about then no use to even talk about it. To make a long story short, every element in periodic table radiates, but not every radiation is equally harmful and the isotopes used in nuclear reactions are some nasty fucks when it comes to radiation type and the dmg it causes. So dont go comparing radiation from coal burning to radiation made by elements used in nuclear reaction, or even better anyone who made the article about it, would he rather stand near 10kg of any isotope that is used in nuclear powerplant or near 10kg of burning coal. Guess the answer is quite obvious if they care to live more then next few months.

Edit: Again to repeat it, i by no mean have anything against nuclear power or coal plants, only stating my opinion and the harms it can make.

[kaiadam]

I was only pointing out that atm nuclear power can and has caused a crap ton of problem. I do not rly care who build what and where, but since you went there, calling unthinking hysteria or what not when we speak about things that nuclear power did (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chenobyl, Fukushima, etc... - sure first two were weapons, but still powered by nuclear power so its even worse)and yet you are going on a premises that co2 is actually doing something bad to earth. There is no 100% proof that its causing global heating, its only speculations and theories, and to every global heating caused by co2 theory there is one that says otherwise. So before pointing out fingers about hysteria, should check your own hysteria first.

Now as far as i know, there is still no known way of removing radiation from radioactive waste, only way is to store, so if you have a 100% proven way of getting rid of radioactive waste, plz do share it, and i do not mean storing it in a barrel for xxxx years until it fully disperses.

Again sure maybe it does radiate more and by no mean am i saying coal plants are healty, but there is a big diff in what type of element is radiating. Since every element known to man kind from periodic table radiates and there is diff types of radiations, i dont rly wanna explain it all now, cba rly, if you know what i am talking about you will understand if you dont know what i am talking about then no use to even talk about it. To make a long story short, every element in periodic table radiates, but not every radiation is equally harmful and the isotopes used in nuclear reactions are some nasty fucks when it comes to radiation type and the dmg it causes. So dont go comparing radiation from coal burning to radiation made by elements used in nuclear reaction, or even better anyone who made the article about it, would he rather stand near 10kg of any isotope that is used in nuclear powerplant or near 10kg of burning coal. Guess the answer is quite obvious if they care to live more then next few months.

Edit: Again to repeat it, i by no mean have anything against nuclear power or coal plants, only stating my opinion and the harms it can make.

Actually, opinions like this are exactly what he mentioned by "hysteria." Objectively, nuclear is several orders of magnitude (note, I'm using this phrase correctly) safer and cleaner than coal. The risks aren't even comparable.

Your 10kg isotope vs 10kg of burning coal is also fallible - to produce the energy of 10 kg of coal, you'd need maybe 0.1 mg of any relevant nuclear fuel. And yes, there's a lot more radiation in 10kg of burning coal than 0.1mg of nuclear fuel, a lot more.

[Kellhound]

Actually, opinions like this are exactly what he mentioned by "hysteria." Objectively, nuclear is several orders of magnitude (note, I'm using this phrase correctly) safer and cleaner than coal. The risks aren't even comparable.

Your 10kg isotope vs 10kg of burning coal is also fallible - to produce the energy of 10 kg of coal, you'd need maybe 0.1 mg of any relevant nuclear fuel. And yes, there's a lot more radiation in 10kg of burning coal than 0.1mg of nuclear fuel, a lot more.

Eh, havent seen a coal powerplant failure render hundereds of square miles unsafe to live in. It may be cleaner, but not safer.