Research Poll: Public Support for a Nuclear Powered Aeroplane

Hi,

My name is Dawson S and I'm a student from Australia. I'm currently completing a research project into the modern-day feasibility of a nuclear-powered aeroplane (as first suggested in the Cold War). I am to deliver this project in December at the Stockholm International Youth Science Seminars where I will attend the Nobel Prize ceremonies.

I am interested in poll results from different community groups and as such I have approached this forum. Please vote above and comment below should you have any strong opinions. I only require opinions; I already have all of the scientific data I require for my project (this is one of the last sections I am to complete).

Voting is to be done with any information you can muster, not information I provide.

Thank-you for your help

Surely this can't be safe if/when it crashes?

Surely the benefit of a nuclear powered plane would be made completely superfluous if we get the low orbit re-entry vehicles sorted. Uk to Australia in 2hrs....

I can't see how nuclear powered plane would be able to compete.

TiG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawson300

Voting is to be done with any information you can muster, not information I provide.

---

So you want help with your project, but you expect us, on a PC biased technical forum, to either know about nuclear powered planes or research it ourselves?

:crazy:

"Hello and this is your captain speaking. The temperature outside is currently 31 degrees celsius and I have to inform you that our nucleur reactor has a 0.0005% chance of exploding. As on the last 9995 trips this has not happened, I also regret to inform you that any survivers of this trip will grow an extra head and be rendered sterile.

Thank you for your attention"


The idea of terrorists driving a nucleur powered plane into the side of a building doesn't appeal to me either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajbrun

Surely this can't be safe if/when it crashes?

---

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

Why not plug the plane into the mains and have it electric powered. :P

/sarcasm

Provided that I was satisfied the technology was safe I would have no problem with it. I might steer clear for a year or two to see how things went but I would be fine if safety was demonstrated.

Out of interest what would the main advantages be? Economy with rising oil prices? Longer range flights?

What's going to be done with the waste? Vented while flying over France? ;)

I think the reason dawson300 isn't providing any information, requiring us to go seek it out, is to avoid him biasing his participants.

Even though air travel is one of the 'safer' forms of travel accidents do happen, and in the past year I think there must have been at least 5 serious crashes.



It's far too dangerous to use.


I think more investment should be ploughed into solar and wind powered hybrid planes with partial use of fossil fuel.

I'd be more worried about safety if a plane was to crash. Not only would it effect the plane crash but surrounding area. Also i'm not a nuclear physic but surely you need to have lots of water onboard for cooling i think and that would just add so much extra weight

I watched a programme recently about US and Soviet attempts to produce a nuclear powered bomber in the late 50's and 60's. Basically if you wanted the crew to live to a decent age and father children you needed too much weight in the form of Lead shielding to make it a viable option. The closed cycle was the way to go because the open cycle polluted the atmosphere.

Could we do it now? Yes we could but it would never be commercially viable for an airliner because you'd irradiate all of your passengers. The shielding to protect them would make the aircraft far too heavy.

Alternative fuels for aircraft were widely used during WW2. For example fuels derived from feedstocks such as coal, natural gas, bio-oils and cellulose matter were widely used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawson300

I only require opinions; I already have all of the scientific data I require for my project (this is one of the last sections I am to complete).

Voting is to be done with any information you can muster, not information I provide.

Thank-you for your help

---

Without the technical information on how the nuclear powered plane would work I can't make a decision on whether or not it's a good idea, some problems that would seemingly totally kill the idea have been mentioned earlier and without knowing how the prospective plane would overcome them (if at all) means I can't make a worthwhile decision.

I have no problem with the concept, but it's the quality of the implementation of that concept that will decide whether or not I'm willing to fly on that plane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowmaster

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

---

There wouldn't be a nuclear explosion triggered by one of the survivors shakily lighting a cigarette, but even if we assume all of the technological hurdles (eg not irradiating the passengers) could be ironed out - they can't, but even if they could - IMO there would be no way to satisfactorily administer the distribution of all the nuclear materials to the 10,000s of planes flying in and out and around the country with any degree of security.

There has been no progress in airplane design since Concorde. OK, that's a slightly unfair statement. But the progress has all been towards efficiency. While a nuclear power source provides effectively unlimited clean propulsion, the weight penalty would make a commercial operation totally unviable.

Let's put it another way. Airlines run not by providing good, fast efficient service, but by cutting costs to make their fares the cheapest. This is the fault of the consumer. We don't buy tickets by chosing an airline we like the service from. (If we did, we'd all fly Singapore!). We go on to travelocity or priceline or any of a dozen other websites which compare dozens of airlines and then we choose the cheapest ticket.


The result is that these dozens of airlines compete not to provide the best, cleanest airplanes, but the cheapest fare. Since nuclear propulsion isn't (nor will it ever be!) cheaper than conventional jet engines, there will be zero interest from airlines.

If you think about it, there has been no movement towards higher or faster flight, (apart from in corporate aviation) only towards carrying more people (A380) and greater efficiency (B787). The response from airlines to the high oil prices hasn't been a demand for different fuel sources, but reductions in capacity (especially in 50-seat jets), winglets for older airplanes, single engine taxiing, and charging for checked bags and meals.

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

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowmaster

+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.

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.

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? :D

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

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 :P

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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.

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 ;/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeePee

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.

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.

Hell no. I do not want to be anywhere near that close to a nuclear reactor of any kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeePee

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.

---

That true but i'd think that they'd probaly come up with some new rules about it.
To Really make a descion about it i'd have to see more info about it like weight, how easy it is to operate (being a pilot i suddenly don't want to learn how to operate a nuclear powerstation) and speed

Being a pilot you don't need to know everything about how the engine operates do you? As long as you know the working parameters and acceptable limits any faults will be logged in some sort of FADEC unit or hand written by the FE in the Tech Log Book. So as a pilot, irregardless of how it does the job, surely all you require to know is it's operating parameters and what to do when something abnormal occurs.

If aircraft were powered by a nuclear fission reactor of sorts, then as Teepee mentioned, there has to be some sort of redundancy system in place. Twin Engine long haul planes fulfill an ETOPs requirement so do you carry 2 nuclear reactors with one as back up?

What kind of mass is required to generate enough energy to enable, say the A380 or 747-8 off the ground? Where would you locate it due to the mass of the reactor and shielding? How would this affect CoG? The whole structural concept would have to be revised to accomodate such an idea. You could no longer apply a MToW or maximum landing weight as the weight would remain (relatively) unchanged as their is no fuel consumed.

To bring the concept of nuclear air travel to the fore, you would have to specifically design an aircraft around the powerplant.

Anyhow, I'm just ranting now. Sorry.

EDIT:
Not forgetting the ground support crew; I don't think it would take too much to further train the maintenance people on inspecting/repairing/handeling radioactive material, after all they use depleted uranium as counter-balance weights (at least in the DC10s) as well some of the more extreme airframe/structure NDI carried out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleepyhead

Being a pilot you don't need to know everything about how the engine operates do you? As long as you know the working parameters and acceptable limits any faults will be logged in some sort of FADEC unit or hand written by the FE in the Tech Log Book. So as a pilot, irregardless of how it does the job, surely all you require to know is it's operating parameters and what to do when something abnormal occurs.

---

I wouldn't have to know everything but to shut one down safely and stuff like that. any how just thing how many people there are in a nuclear powerstation. But now when i think about it, there nuclear subs and warships and they get on ok without have a fleet of nuclear techs. Any way if you were to have a nuclear plane i wouldn't be suprised if the flight enginer made a come back.

LoL. The good old FE...technology has replaced him (or her). I worded mypost badly and re-reading it sound like I was having a go at you. My bad. Sorry.

I was illustrating the point that pilots don't need to be Part 66 B1/B2 LAE with type rating to fly; only the training required of them to operate the equipment in a safe and controlled manner and also corrective actions required, if needed, when operational parameters are exceeded.

We know that larger reactors are more efficient than smaller ones.

So if it's more expensive to run an aircraft carrier on a nuclear reactor than on diesel turbines, then we can be sure it would be more expensive to run a smaller reactor in an airplane than the equivalent turbines.

The advantage for the aircraft carrier is esentially unlimited range, without dependency on land facilities. What would be the advantage for an airliner?

None stop around the world trips? :D

Financially, I have no knowledge on total operating costs for any airliner and I also have no knowledge of the running costs for a reactor.

You'd have to balance the running costs for a normal aircraft and (an identical or similar) nuclear powered aircraft, taking into account MRO costs, aircraft purchasing/leasing costs, supporting ground crew, landing fees and whatever else I have missed out.

In the long term it may end up beneficial to have a nuclear reactor powered aircraft as you would no longer be paying the cost of fuel, i don't know, I'm no accountant or cost analyst.

All i am sure of is you'd spend alot of time and money retro-fitting or designing a new aircraft to accomodate such power sources and then you'd be stuck at getting it approved under Civilian aircraft authority.

I was always under the impresion that a nuclear powered bomber had already flown- in the story that has just come back from the depths of my subconscious mind, shielding the reactor was impossible so they gave all the crew lead lined suits instead:).

Having just had a bit of a google around, I can find no evidence at all for this having happened, so I'm forced to conclude that it was a figment of my drunken imagination, or an internet conspiracy theory, or most likely, a combination of the two.

Anyway, as someone who is not particularly concerned about nuclear contamination, I still think that nuclear planes would be unsafe and uneconomical. I think that in the future when fossil fuels become so expensive as to render air travel prohibitively costly, we'll all have to get used to travelling taking longer than we're used to. Now that the largest cruise ships are about 60% larger in tonnage terms than a Nimitz-class carrier there's no good reason why they can't be nuclear powered. We'll just have to adjust to a trip to the states taking 4 or 5 days rather than 10 hours.

I don't think it'll ever be 'safe' in the vast majority of people' minds, no matter how well worded an argument was for it. I don't really see the major airliners taking to this idea either, as has been stated, it's of no real advantage to them even if possible.

Besides, I don't like flying in any aircraft that I couldn't control myself, so I'm limited to things like the RAF's Vigilante glider :D

A vigilant is harder to fly than a 777.

Really? Lucky me then :D Shame I never finished my gliding scholarship :(

But I bet flying a 777 like a Vigilante would cause a few upset(stomach)s :P