Research Poll: Public Support for a Nuclear Powered Aeroplane

[Guy]

Ive just noticed the poll answers are all very uncertain, theres no definate yes no answers . . . .

[Englander]

If it were technically viable (i.e. getting around the lead issue and whatnot) then yea, why not.

But seeing as the issues with safety and weight, I don't think it's a very plausible idea in the first place.

[mediaboy]

Rastaman - isn't 60% a fairly good yes?

[MadduckUK]

its certainly a lot closer than the hot or cold tap question.

[Whiternoise]

+1, its way too dangerous, unless they can find some safe way to avoid a nuclear explosion if the plane crashes.

Nuclear Explosions as we know them are a thing of the past - at least in civilian nuclear physics. The fuel on board would not nearly be enough to form a supercritical mass required for a nuclear explosion. What's more likely is the risk of nuclear fallout should the containment fail.

It would also have to carry a LOT of lead/heavy metal to stop it from being a danger to the passengers. As TeePee rightly says, the weight is going to make up for the lack of standard fuel. Also bear in mind you're still not getting rid of the engine, just the fuel weight.

And finally, this is presumably going to be prop powered? Since obviously it'd be pointless having a turbojet engine on a craft of this sort.

[Emirzan]

Unequivocally no, definitely not. Going as high into the atmosphere as planes currently do already exposes you to more radiation than is ideal (or healthy in the long term if you fly frequently) so why add more to the equation?

And inevitably a plane would crash, as Whiternoise points out this is unlikely to result in an explosion, but nonetheless hazardous toxic waste would be spread much like a dirty bomb. These planes would become a massive target for terroists, imagine if the planes that destroyed the world trade centre on september 11th 2001 had contained nuclear material? It would have been spread over all of lower manhattan.

What I'd give support to in order to achieve less environmentally damaging air travel would be nuclear power plants to produce the energy needed to create hydrogen fuel. Although that said a lot more research would be needed before we could use hydrogen fuels in planes it is in my opinion a much promising alternative.

[Agent]

Maybe I'm just being cynical - but does this strike anyone else as a cleverly worded thread as to find out why a nuclear powered plane won't work?
Homework project perhaps?

[Emirzan]

I thought exactly the same thing as I wrote my reply. Even if it is this is quite an interesting thread.

[AdamAnubis]

True agent, but i would have thought the word 'Nuclear' and 'Plane' in the same sentance, would be a fairly good giveaway as to why it is a bad idea

[TooNice]

I am open to the idea if they can make it work. Problem is, if they haven't been able to make commercially viable nuclear ships for civilian transport in any significant number, then I don't think we'll see it for planes any time soon. I do find it interesting that most people voted a firm 'no' mainly from a safety perspective yet didn't seem the least worried about the LHC experiment, which is probably less well understood.

[shadowmaster]

I am open to the idea if they can make it work. Problem is, if they haven't been able to make commercially viable nuclear ships for civilian transport in any significant number, then I don't think we'll see it for planes any time soon. I do find it interesting that most people voted a firm 'no' mainly from a safety perspective yet didn't seem the least worried about the LHC experiment, which is probably less well understood.

I think its the combination of the words nuclear and plane, that does not go down well with people

[Butuz]

Wooo - no way.

I had a dream about this once - I was on a beach, it was sunny, everthing was nice. Then all of a sudden a plane came overhead in trouble and plunged into the sea a mile or so out. As I saw the plane going down - I had massive fear and dread - why? Because all planes were nuclear powered of course! The sudden realisation hit me that if that plane hits the sea we're all going to die.

Of course, the plane hit the sea, the mushroom cloud came up, and we all died.

Listen to my dreams!!!! They're a warning regarding Nuclear Powered Aeroplanes!!!!

Butuz

[Lee H]

How fast would the nuclear powered plane go on a treadmill if it had a 20 mph tailwind?

Here we are all are saying no, but watch us accelerate our technology by the reading the results of the LHC test.

If we are able to make things fly using this technology, imagine the power requirements - nuclear might only be the viable option.

[Spud1]

Would depend entirely on the implementation. I think that in principle the idea has merit, depending on the size/weight ratio of the fuel cell and how that would effect air travel...

The problem is that it will never happen, people will just not accept that its possible for it to be safe. Most people see the word "nuclear" and immediate think "oh noes, its dangerous!" when in reality thats just not the case. Nuclear power is incredibly safe and needs to be embraced, not run away from in fear.

The biggest issues I see would be the waste disposal - not sure that terrorism etc is a big threat as the nuclear material used would probably not be suitable for weapons. If it ever took off as an idea I can see us generating a lot of waste tho ;/

[Betty_Swallocks]

While a nuclear power source provides effectively unlimited clean propulsion, the weight penalty would make a commercial operation totally unviable.

I'm not so sure it would actually. A 747 for example carries a full fuel load of around 60,000 gallons which weighs somewhere in the region of 187 tons.

187 tons of shielding and protection for the reactor would probably be sufficient if designed right.

As for the crash risk tbh I'm not too worried about that. The protection they can put around these reactors is pretty amazing. Did you ever see that famous clip of a train ploughing into a nuclear materials container at full speed? Hardly even dented it. Technology has gone a long way since the tests mentioned earlier in the '50's and '60's.

Besides, we have warplanes flying around every single day with nuclear bombs on board and they are designed to go off bang. As I understand it it's rather difficult to make a nuclear weapon go off. The reactor by comparison would be pretty harmless. I'm sure there must have been instances of bomb carrying planes crashing over the years, even if we haaven't been told about it.

[TeePee]

64,225 US Gallons is 366561lbs or about 160 metric tonnes on the 747ER.

However, there are many complexities when it comes to fuel management, not least the 110 tonne difference in allowable takeoff weight and landing weight, which assumes the plane burns fuel during flight.
Full fuel is often a tradeoff against cargo weight. But to carry the same weight full fuel for a regular 747, you'd have 50 tonnes for the shielding.

But then you'd also need the different engines (A steam turbine might well be lighter than a jet) and then you'd need a reactor (which would be heavy) and all the cooling water, which is denser than JET-A.

There's also an isue with redundancy. With a single reactor, the airplane could be considered to be 'Single Engine' which, among other things, would not be permitted under part 121 regulations for air carriers in the USA.