Research Poll: Public Support for a Nuclear Powered Aeroplane

[dawson300]

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

[ajbrun]

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

[TiG]

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

[Allen]

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?

[mediaboy]

"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...

[shadowmaster]

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.

[sleepyhead]

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

/sarcasm

[Lanky123]

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?

[Agent]

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

[Steve]

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

[Mithrandir]

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.

[handscombmp]

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

[iranu]

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.

[Mblaster]

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.

[JPreston]

+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.

[TeePee]

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.