|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear powered airliners
If we are to believe the pundits we are in the last few decades of
relatively cheap liquid fossil fuels, we are also being berated interminably by the message that we are significantly effecting climate with CO2 releases (personally I'm not 100 percent convinced that it is entirely anthropogenic yet). At the same time it is I think unlikely that people will be willing to accept significant drops in standard of living as a result of these problems - so we need to find solutions. Hydrogen sucks as a fuel for aircraft due to low energy density, we could manufacture hydrocarbon fuels from biomass or even atmospheric CO2 given sufficient energy, but I would like to propose a potentially more efficient solution: the widespread use of commercial nuclear aircraft. The problems associated with nuclear powered aircraft are primarily down to safety, so to offer a pathway into the widespread adoption and use of nuclear power for aircraft I propose the following: Nuclear Tow Planes. We build Nuclear powered tow planes that are unmanned and completely autonomous. These tow planes are sufficiently powerful to tow large commercial jets and have reactors that are capable of operation for several years at a time continuously aloft on a reactor load of fuel (readily achievable). These planes would initially only operate beyond the 200 mile limits over international waters, far away from land where they could not cause damage if they crashed. The planes will operate at say 3000-15000m in an environment where they are never exposed to the dangers of foreign object ingestion, magnetic or gas lubricated bearings can be used in the turbomachinery with relatively low Turbine temperatures (say less than 950 deg C) and largish blade clearances to ensure extremely long reliable engine life). These planes would never land at airports thus avoiding the risks of landing and takeoff and ensuring that no one will ever be exposed to radiation. Towing on a long rope ensures that passengers would never be exposed to reactor radiation, and the reactor shielding could be minimal. All maintenance and support for a large fleet could be done at an isolated island facility (eg bikini atoll or the like), a cradle/catapult launch system and recovery via redundant ballistic recovery parachutes, or water landings could eliminate landing gear. High lift devices could be eliminated leaving a very simple aircraft with minimal systems that can go wrong. Planes being towed could be converted from tubofans to turboprops for takeoff and landing and with enough fuel to get to safety if the tow failed for some reason, in flight the turboprops could be feathered. A further refinement - and perhaps a major selling point, is the possibility of making supersonic tow planes - towing aircraft around the world at mach 2-3, anywhere on the planet cheaply in a single flight of under 10 hours - this could open up a lot of new markets. The tow planes can drop off one plane and pick up another straight away, increasing their utilisation so that there is probably only the need for one tow plane for every two or three international passenger planes. This idea can be sold to the public as an environmental boon - could reduce CO2 emissions greatly, and could prove very economically attractive with massively increased cargo capacity on long flights and greatly reduced fuel bills. It probably only makes sense on international flights of longer than 1 hour, but it could also make international air cargo a lot cheaper opening up still further market possibilities. Bringing it back to space.. nuclear tow planes, possibly supersonic, could also have application to HTHL assisted SSTO ala KellySpace, Pioneer et al, with an onboard power excess they could possibly be tweaked to make LOX and even condense water for LH2 manufacture for mid air refueling. They would also be excellent for ferrying space planes closer to the equator for low inclination launches. Thoughts and comments? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Lynn wrote: Nuclear Tow Planes. We build Nuclear powered tow planes that are unmanned and completely autonomous. These tow planes are sufficiently powerful to tow large commercial jets and have reactors that are capable of operation for several years at a time continuously aloft on a reactor load of fuel (readily achievable). Here, we see one under test: http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/195704.jpg Soon, the F7U Cutlass shall be replaced with the revolutionary new Boeing 707, and American Atomic Airlines shall initiate nonstop service from New York to Los Angles- via Europe, Asia, and Hawaii. :-) Pat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Perhaps it would be better to make a large nuclear airplane carrier
that would swallow smaller airliners and carry them around the globe. I envision a large lifting body perhaps triangular or disk shaped. The passenger planes could land inside the carrier and the people would have a lot of room with recreational facilities, space to strech, bigger bathrooms etc. Project Pluto developed the nuclear ramjet engine that makes this possible. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Lynn" wrote:
Thoughts and comments? Whatever you are smoking - it's probably illegal. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 11 Oct 2005 19:51:19 -0700, "Robert Lynn"
wrote: If we are to believe the pundits we are in the last few decades of relatively cheap liquid fossil fuels, we are also being berated interminably by the message that we are significantly effecting climate with CO2 releases (personally I'm not 100 percent convinced that it is entirely anthropogenic yet). What is always elided is the fact that even if global warming is occurring, and even if it is anthropogenic, it is a big leap from that to proving that fossil fuel combustion is the mechanism. IMO deforestation and other practices that alter the hydrological cycle may well be more important. -- Roy L |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not so sure hydrogen is a bad fuel for airliners. They can be
constructed to have large volume - weight is the constraint. Also, a lot of energy is consumed at take-off, and I suspect most flying is done over land. Perhaps airports should be equipped with electromagnetic launchers, that could launch a hydrogen powered aircraft. High altitude airports could launch craft at supersonic speed - this too might have an application for space launch. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Alex Terrell wrote: Perhaps airports should be equipped with electromagnetic launchers, that could launch a hydrogen powered aircraft. Here we see the hydrogen-fueled airliner lifting off from its launcher: http://davidszondy.com/future/Flight/bulletplane.jpg High altitude airports could launch craft at supersonic speed - this too might have an application for space launch. Better yet, high-velocity rotary wing launcher!: http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/194107.jpg The passengers will love being stuck to the starboard cabin wall as the rotor comes up to speed. For real fun, figure out what happens if the tow line doesn't detach on this scheme: http://davidszondy.com/future/Flight/jet_catapult.jpg .....the catapult vehicle stops...and the tow line draws taut...and then.... :-D Pat |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Alex Terrell wrote:
Perhaps airports should be equipped with electromagnetic launchers, that could launch a hydrogen powered aircraft. And the passengers would be subjected to a "nice" acceleration of about 5-25 G... So anybody with even a hint of aneurism or cardiovascular problems would die on that trip. That's really nice. Marko PS. Alternative would be really long electromagnetic rails - on the order of several kilometres - but the question is could that be paid off during the exploitation. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear powered airliners
Air & Space Smithsoina did an article some years back on a US project
Pluto, a nuclear powered cruise missile that was designed to be as simple as possible, in that it was ingesting air, heating it direct in an unsheilded pile, and ejecting the expanded exhaust, along with particles of radwaste. It didn't need a warhead: it could just fly over the enemy country polluting it with radwaste from the sky until it got blown up. I seem to recall the project died because there was no safe way to test it over American soil, and testing it anywhere else was practically a declaration of war. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"To The End Of The Solar System" | Henry Spencer | History | 33 | December 21st 04 09:19 AM |
Nasa Stuff | Neil Clark | History | 0 | December 16th 04 11:50 AM |
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART | Eric Erpelding | Policy | 3 | November 15th 04 12:32 AM |
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART | Eric Erpelding | History | 3 | November 15th 04 12:32 AM |
Bechtel Nevada: Control of the World's Largest Nuclear Weapons Facilities | * | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 2nd 04 05:29 PM |