NationStates Jolt Archive

As I don't know jack about nuclear reactors, let alone related drive systems, can anyone help me out with this?

If I were to make a nuclear airship (zeppelin):
a) Would the reactor be able to power the engines?
b) If so, would propeller be the only option? Or could you use some sort of thruster/ion engine?
c) how much does a typical ship reactor weigh?

For some reason I'm reminded of..what was it...project pluto?

I ask this because it would be much more practical than the massive ammounts of fuel being burned on my Super Zeppelins:

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/airbattleship.jpg

1) I would think so...tis able to power submarines, aircraft carriers. Though...question's how safe would it be? How protected are these airships, how vulnerable?

I advise against it, they are too heavy to fly, must be maintained by a good sized crew of at least 10 at all times, and if it crasheds, you have a dirty bomb

Super... Zepplins?

Well, its not really practical, for the simple reason that each reactor has to weigh a considerable amount in order to house all the machinery and all the necessary shielding. Even if the zeppelin could theoretically get afloat, the sheer concentration of weight would create tremendous trim and manueverability issues.

I can pretty much garauntee noone will buy one either, for ff they are shot down (and that is a possibility), or even suffer a bad accident, then the resulting ecological disaster would be huge.

I advise against it, they are too heavy to fly, must be maintained by a good sized crew of at least 10 at all times, and if it crasheds, you have a dirty bombHow much does it weigh? If it's less than 250 tons, I'd be happy.

But you got a point with the dirty bomb... how do they solve such problems on navy ships?

A nuclear reactor would be more, it takes up a good chunk of a nuclear sub, needs a large crew, and is made of lead at least 3 feet thick.

It isn't feasible, I would rather have a bunch of ram-jet engines or turbojets.

Well, ships float, and very rarely sink, and even if they do, then they will not generaslly sink fast enough for the reactor itself to be breached. Plus water acts as a natural radiation shield and does help contain the damage somewhat.

IMO The largest problem with a nuclear reactor in the air, is where are you going to get and store your water for it?

A nuclear reactor would be more, it takes up a good chunk of a nuclear sub, needs a large crew, and is made of lead at least 3 feet thick.

It isn't feasible, I would rather have a bunch of ram-jet engines or turbojets.That's enough to get me off this idea ^_^ I forgot the shielding


Well, right now, I got a giant Jet/pulse-det hybrid engine... It sucks up a lot of fuel, but until I can think of anything different, that's all I can use.

There have been jet aircraft that use nuclear reactors, I suppose you could too.

On navy ships, it is encased in lead that is meters thick. That makes it unfeasable on planes. As for not having a dirty bomb, the thought is that Navy ships bumping into eachother will probably not harm the reactor which is interior, besides they are moving slower.

On a plane, there is virtually no way to encase it with certainty. Even black boxes are lost in about half of all crashes and they are sub-sonic.

There have been jet aircraft that use nuclear reactors, I suppose you could too.

Got a source on that?

And doesn't nuclear power use water to create steam to turn turbines? If so, wouldn't it have to be a propeller aircraft, not jet?

Bad idea, even if it would save alot of fuel. When you use a conventional jet engine, you get most of your power directly out of it in the form of thrust, then you power your systems by hooking a generator up of to the side of the engine. If you use nuclear power, you would be using alot more weight converting the electrical energy to thrust instead of vice versa. And to answer B) yes you could, but it would be powered electrically by the reactor, not a direct result of vented rads or somesuch....And it still wouldn't be as efficient as a jet engine. And on the dirty bomb point, on navy ships they haven't solved that yet, but I guess they figure its in the water so it'll spread out.

There have been jet aircraft that use nuclear reactors, I suppose you could too.

Project Pluto, a proposed missile delivery system which involved a nuclear reactor being the source of power.

There have been jet aircraft that use nuclear reactors, I suppose you could too.umm... yeah... link?

http://rocketjones.mu.nu/archives/009314.html
http://www.nv.doe.gov/news&pubs/publications/historyreports/news&views/pluto.htm
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Project-Pluto.htm
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/leiber/50/dgmjpp.htm

There have been jet aircraft that use nuclear reactors, I suppose you could too.

Project Pluto, a proposed missile delivery system which involved a nuclear reactor being the source of power.Different type of reactor.

Project pluto:

The principle behind the ramjet was relatively simple: air was drawn in at the front of the vehicle under ram (under great force) pressure, heated to make it expand, and then exhausted out the back, providing thrust.

source: http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Project-Pluto.htm

Project pluto used mini nuclear reactors in the engines INSTEAD of jet fuel... a very interesting Idea... but definately dangerous, and unsafe to fly manned

The problem is basically shielding. Nuclear reactors have gotten smaller, but they admit radiation in much the same way.

Besides, nuclear systems are much more expensive and dont any actual decrease in fuel cost.

May I suggest a Zeppelin tanker?

Raysia, if i'm correct, it didnt succeed. I know the thing in general was scrapped. A problem, if I'm correct, was extreme vibration which trashed the reactor core. Could be wrong.

So basically there never was a plane built with a nuclear reactor.

The problem with fueling the Zeppelin is that it has 2 engines with max thrust outputs of 700,000 lbf, and normal cruise outputs of 300,000 lbf.... to use those engines requires several gallons of fuel per second.

Anyone know of a more efficient drive? I use pulse detonation for fuel efficiency in cruise mode.

So basically there never was a plane built with a nuclear reactor.Not one that produces power, only heat.

Did you at at least remember to put solar panels on them? Mebbe fuel cells? Did you ever think that maybe there are certain weaknesses you have to accept in something like a several thousand ton bag of gas with tons of armor(I still dont get how you can put 6" on but w/e)

Did you at at least remember to put solar panels on them? Mebbe fuel cells? Did you ever think that maybe there are certain weaknesses you have to accept in something like a several thousand ton bag of gas with tons of armor(I still dont get how you can put 6" on but w/e)I didn't put 6" of armor on... If I said that somewhere, I need to fix that. (Should be aluminum frame with liquidmetal envelope, 1/8" thick.)

Nevertheless, I have yet to consider fuel cells... would that work? I know solarthermal energy would work, we use it in our powerplants in our nation.

Which drive do you think would be best?

Your skybase and thundercloud models both say 6" of liquid metal with aluminum reinforcements.

Fuel cells would work, but you might not get enough power out of them to move a ship of any size, so they might not work well, I'm no expert on fuel cell power/weight.

Edit: misunderstanding on the armor thing, I thought it meant the outer hull is 6" thick, although I still don't know quite what you're trying to say......that the individual balloons inside have 6" of armor each?

Fuel cells are basically modern tech batteries, and although you could get enough to power a zeppelin, you are not going to any sigincrease range to signicant degree.

However, if you did use solar cells to power electrical engines, you could theoretically power it to unlimited ranges, but just not very quickly.

Sileetris: I'm fixing the armor thing.

TFT: Would I get drop fuel weight if I switched to Fuel cells and large propellers?

And I'm not thinking of solar cells, I'm talking about a solarthermal sterling engine.