NationStates Jolt Archive

At Brettonian Military Industries, producers of the Technology of Peace™, we have historically outsourced production of certain technological elements of our designs, aerospace engines notably among the largest.

At present, our prime contractor, Relic Aerospace, is unable to fufill our current primary need. To recify this, we have provided an open contract to any interested parties.

Brettonian Military Industries requires a closed-cycle nuclear ramjet engine, capable of sustained thrust in excess of 800,000 lbf with dimensions no greater than 5.4 meters width, 5.4 meters height, and 68 meters length. We would prefer if the engine were to function on easily-available fissile material, as opposed to some of the more exotic fissionables that seem to be popular nowadays.

We are seeking the highest-quality product from the lowest bidder. Relic Aerospace has greatly prospered from our subcontracting in the past; rest assured, your industry will benefit greatly from a lucrative deal with Brettonian Military Industries.

OOC: what are you planning on using this thing for? If you really want interstellar travel, just use an Orion drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_drive) or something, its bigger but its also a cheaper, simpler design and hey, there are more than enough nukes laying around.
As cool as the Nuclear Ramjet sounds though, it seems like Deceleration would be a problem, what with the intake facing the wrong direction after theturn-over and all.

OOC: what are you planning on using this thing for? If you really want interstellar travel, just use an Orion drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_drive) or something, its bigger but its also a cheaper, simpler design and hey, there are more than enough nukes laying around.
As cool as the Nuclear Ramjet sounds though, it seems like Deceleration would be a problem, what with the intake facing the wrong direction after theturn-over and all.

OOC: Errr.... nuclear ramjet for atmospheric propulsion. On an aircraft.

OOC:my mistake, I did a quick search and the only thing I found matching a Nuclear Ramjet was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

I'm not sure nuclear ramjet propulsion is feasible at all in atmosphere...

At Brettonian Military Industries, producers of the Technology of Peace™, we have historically outsourced production of certain technological elements of our designs, aerospace engines notably among the largest.

At present, our prime contractor, Relic Aerospace, is unable to fufill our current primary need. To recify this, we have provided an open contract to any interested parties.

Brettonian Military Industries requires a closed-cycle nuclear ramjet engine, capable of sustained thrust in excess of 800,000 lbf with dimensions no greater than 5.4 meters width, 5.4 meters height, and 68 meters length. We would prefer if the engine were to function on easily-available fissile material, as opposed to some of the more exotic fissionables that seem to be popular nowadays.

We are seeking the highest-quality product from the lowest bidder. Relic Aerospace has greatly prospered from our subcontracting in the past; rest assured, your industry will benefit greatly from a lucrative deal with Brettonian Military Industries.

We have a better design for you, we call it the turbo prop.

http://aircraft-charter-helicopters-aeroplanes-for-sale.toffsworld.com/images/turboprop_engine_diagram.jpg It would be more powerfull than the enigne which you describe, as well as cheaper and actually possible to build.

TPM, the turboprop is not more powerful than a nuclear jet engine. I don't know where you got that, and its made in the RL so its not your creation or anything so he can make his own.

Your specs are extremely unreasonable. You will not get 800,000 lbf when we have yet to make more than 200,000 lbf per engine.

Your specs are extremely unreasonable. You will not get 800,000 lbf when we have yet to make more than 200,000 lbf per engine.
Thats what i meant ^^

OOC: I probably should have specified that this was aimed at a PMT environment in the first post, yes...

bump

bump

OOC:

I think you'll find that:

A) No-one has ever made one
B) No-one can be bothered making one
C) Not many people RP in the PMT period you are looking for.

So you aren't going to get many bids, my friend, make your own. Its entirely unknown territory, and therefore not many people are interested.

OOC: PMT is the second most popular era, friend. I'm not sure where you're getting these figures from. The fact that you only registered a month or so ago does shine some light on the subject, though.

joining time is not a relevant judge of knowledge or skill, a point so succinctly proved by your own 2003 join date.

Now then, while many people do RP in PMT, not many RP in very late PMT, most are about 2020-2050, whle this thing is more like 2080-2100, if even.

OOC: Technically no, this technology was tested in the sixties

OOC:

But will only be PERFECTED to the degree he wants by 2080, still.

And before you make judgements on people based on their join date, take note of this:

Galashiels, 2006
Kazakhlands, 2005
Kazakhstania, 2004
Freedom Country, 2002

I have more experience on this web site than you do, my friend. Now let it lie, and dont get personal.

you are freedom country? don't u remeber me?

joining time is not a relevant judge of knowledge or skill, a point so succinctly proved by your own 2003 join date.

Now then, while many people do RP in PMT, not many RP in very late PMT, most are about 2020-2050, whle this thing is more like 2080-2100, if even.

OOC: That's very cute. Traditional turbofans have been built with nearly this much power in the mid-range PMT environment. Try doing some research first.


But will only be PERFECTED to the degree he wants by 2080, still.

OOC: Nice to see you have a year-by-year playbook for when everything will be possible. Can I see that sometime? I'll help me with my designs.

OOC: Technically no, this technology was tested in the sixties

OOC: Tested and worked in the sixties. Why it would take 120 years to "perfect" the design eludes me. Shield the reactor and build it out of modern composites and you're golden.

You people amuse me to no end.

The worlds most powerful jet engine produces only 115,000 pounds of thrust.

So no.

I dont think the worlds most powerful jet engine is 68 metres long either

The worlds most powerful jet engine produces only 115,000 pounds of thrust.

So no.

OOC: Is your head full of cement? The world's most powerful jet engine in 2006 was capable of 122,965 lbf (http://www.ge.com/stories/en/10676.html). Now, if we're advancing the timetable 30-40 years, how the hell is it that that's not possible?

The Junkers Jumo 004 B-1 turbojet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004) produced 1,980 lbf in 1945. The GE90-115B produces 122,965 61 years later, which is roughly 62-63 times the output. Given the exponential rate of technological increase, to say a NUCLEAR-POWERED RAMJET couldn't produce eight times the current power in 40 years is about as logical as politics in San Francisco.

Quote Bill Engvall, "Here's your sign."

OOC: Is your head full of cement? The world's most powerful jet engine in 2006 was capable of 122,965 lbf (http://www.ge.com/stories/en/10676.html). Now, if we're advancing the timetable 30-40 years, how the hell is it that that's not possible?

The Junkers Jumo 004 B-1 turbojet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004) produced 1,980 lbf in 1945. The GE90-115B produces 122,965 61 years later, which is roughly 62-63 times the output. Given the exponential rate of technological increase, to say a NUCLEAR-POWERED RAMJET couldn't produce eight times the current power in 40 years is about as logical as politics in San Francisco.

Quote Bill Engvall, "Here's your sign."
wrong, the same engine that achieved 122,965 POUNDS OF THRUST is only rated at 115,000 pounds in normal operation.

The 122,965 pounds of thrust was achieved only in a ground test

OOC: So it makes little difference wether it produced 122 thousand or a hundred and fifteen thousand pounds of thrust. The statement Bretton made is still valid

It doesnt because the development of jet engines did not occur at a steady rate, there were dry spells and periods of breakthroughs in the development It was not like they started developing the GE-115 in the 1930s and finished it 62 years later.

Either way the specs he asks for, (8 times the power of a normal jet engine in a still compact size) are outside the realm of normal PMT on NS

5.4 meters width, 5.4 meters height, and 68 meters length
Ive never seen a sixty eight metre long engine, infact thats several times longer than an F22 or any other fighter for that matter

Ive never seen a sixty eight metre long engine, infact thats several times longer than an F22 or any other fighter for that matter

so is the plane it will be on

Its more like the length of a 747

OOC: And with that in mind, why are you ragging on about it?

It should be the size of a space booster if you want that kind of power..

i'll leave you all to the arguments now im done i think

this is above my level of technogoly even if it is possible anyway

It should be the size of a space booster if you want that kind of power..

OOC: According to this (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html#srb) the engine specifications I've given are substantially larger than the NASA Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters, which produce 330,000 lbf. Considering those were made with technology from the late 60s/early 70s, I'd say there's a ton of room for improvement.

OOC: According to this (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html#srb) the engine specifications I've given are substantially larger than the NASA Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters, which produce 330,000 lbf. Considering those were made with technology from the late 60s/early 70s, I'd say there's a ton of room for improvement.

Note that those are rockets not jet engines. Rockets produce considerably more thrust than a jet engine, at the cost of burn time (being only a few minutes at the most compared to prolonged use of jet engines on aircrafts today).

To be honest, I agree with Bretton that you would likely get this by 2080. Then again, I don't RP PMT. Also increasing thrust comes mainly from having better compression ratios (I think), so if you have discovered a real great way of compressing air than todays engines, then I guess it could be feasible. But remember, with this monster you will need a humongous amount of fuel. You would have to mount this on something far larger than the An-225.

OOC:

NUCLEAR

RAMJET

Say it with me!

It uses a nuclear reactor to provide thrust! It uses an almost negligible amount of fuel compared to a traditional jet engine.

Christ, trying to get this much thrust out of a normal jet engine would not only be prohibitively inefficient, it would also require so much of the aircraft's MTOW to be fuel it would be stupidly impractical.

I hate this complete and utter condescending tone that you people show up with. You just assume that this is a stupid design with a stupid backer (myself) without bothering to actually consider what's in the guts of the text. It's sickening.

Did a little more research on this idea... It seems that a closed cycle system like you want, would produce something like... Zero lbf thrust. Because it is a reactor. Now, open cycle is something else, but if you want any thrust out of a closed cycle system, you should start by squeezing blood out of stones.
And the Open Cycle is a bad idea because it has a nasty habit of leaking radiation everywhere it goes... definately not a desireable trait.

A nuclear ramjet is possible, just very difficult, especially if it's going to be on a manned plane or a plane requiring maintenance by manned crews (due to the need for large amounts of shielding/maintenance crews trained to operate in rad suits)...

ofcourse, but the exhaust would be radioactive, as basically its just air heated by the reactor and vented through a Ramjet. Most nations don't treat nuclear pollution lightly when its this blatant

ofcourse, but the exhaust would be radioactive, as basically its just air heated by the reactor and vented through a Ramjet. Most nations don't treat nuclear pollution lightly when its this blatant

ZMI of the Draftroom sez that closed-cycle nuclear ramjets are possible.

OOC: Contrary to popular belief, the exhaust itself from Project Pluto's nuclear ramjet was not radioactive. The radiation let off from the missile came from its completely unshielded reactor. The primary destruction caused by the missile would be from the shockwaves of travelling at Mach 3 at treetop level, its own nuclear submunitions, and direct emissions from the reactor itself.

By shielding the reactor we eliminate the radiation problem, and by not directly burning fissionable materials, we get no dust that makes your Giger counter do its thing. Thus the difference between an "open-cycle" and a "closed-cycle" engine.

A discussion came up about nuclear ramjets at the New Mars forums in 2003, culminating with the inclusion of one of Project Pluto's original engineers and several other aerospace techs who have attempted to replicate the project.

You will find the full text here (http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2408&start=60&sid=6e4132a52a74e79441fcc6b107b52722). For your reading pleasure, I have summed up the important bits below:

"Janyce Wynter recently told me that the Pluto nuclear ramjet would not produce radioactive exhaust. Janyce is an aerospace engineer with Bombardier Aerospace, she designs and tests business jets. I tried to work out the radiation effects of a uranium nuclear reactor on air, and found it produces some beta emitters with half-lives measured in seconds, and tritium. Tritium is also a beta emitter but has a much longer half-life. However, not much tritium would be generated. This calculation is different from what Janyce told me, but the extremely short half-life of the majority of the beta emitters in nuclear jet engine exhaust means it will dissipate quickly. The short half-lives are 7.13 and 26.9 seconds. The one with a half-life of 26.9 seconds will decay 99.63% to a non-radioactive form in 2 hours. The one with a half-life of 7.13 seconds will decay 99.90% in that time. Beta radiation is non-infectious and lacks the energy to penetrate beneath the skin, so is that really a hazard?

Tritium has a half-life in years, but only 0.0115% of the hydrogen of moisture in the air is deuterium, and only that would be transmuted into tritium. Most of the neutron radiation will not be absorbed by deuterium in the air, so most of the tiny quantity of deuterium that is in air will flow through without becoming tritium."

And:

"I am the one who went into as much detail as I can to say that the low level of radiation from a Pluto nuclear jet engine will decay within 2 hours. Furthermore, what radiation that does exist is of a type that does not penetrate through skin. Extremely intense beta radiation can cause skin cancer, but I doubt you would get that intensity unless you stood directly in the exhaust of an operational nuclear jet engine for an extended period of time. I tried to say the quantity of tritium would be negligible and easily ignored, but if you are saying none would be generated at all, then so much the better."

bump

OOC:

Ok, nice facts dude, it seems its possible then.

I was just pointing out that no-one else has made one, and you seem to know more about them than most of nationstates. If you want one anytime in the next year, I suggest you build it yourself, or create a project with other people.

ZMI of the Draftroom sez that closed-cycle nuclear ramjets are possible.

oh it is, but its a generator, not an engine, technically you could pretty easily transmit the generated power into some form of propulsion, but you could do the same thing with a really big battery...

I'd be interested to learn how this 'Pluto' avoided irradiating the exhaust since everything I've heard about nuclear engines is that they just dump air heated directly off the reactor into the air. If it's only radiating in Beta-emitters then it might not penetrate Human skin, but it could still be inhaled, causing a great bit of damage to the relatively unprotected vital bits of the human body, including brachiolae and the occasional vital bacterium lurking in the digestive tract. Or it could have adverse affects on other species in the environement (plants, other animials, insects...)

Further research is showing that this thing would be pretty nasty, the unshielded reactor alone is enough to give anybody who knows anything about nukes the willies, and that doesn't even include the lack of any sort of control mechanisms, this thing could go Chernobyl very easily, and at even just 20,000ft that is a very nasty proposition, If you're planning on using this as a weapon then you're going to be catching serious flack over it and reliability would be an issue, and using it as anythign else would be even more ridiculously unsafe.