"Sky Cruise" nuclear cruise aircraft

[ryoder 1,381]

I don't think they intended this to be humor, but it is so over-the-top that I found it hysterical.
One thing they don't explain it why they never retract the landing gear, even though it is obvioulsy retractable:

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Oh wow.

I've seen some REALLY stupid crap.
I don't know if I've ever seen anything THAT dumb.

 

The list of reasons that will never happen is quite long.

 

One of the top reasons is that something that big would likely never get off the ground.
Weight increases as a cube function with size.
Another top reason is price.
There's a reason that the only nuke powered vehicles (ships & subs) are military.
They don't have to answer to shareholders about how much they cost to build and operate.

The aerodynamics of that thing are just plain silly. Not including the ridiculousness of not retracting landing gear that's only going to be used every few years.

 

Oh my.

[Rickendiver 6]

Sorta been done before.  A bit before my time, but I knew people that worked on this project. REALLY stupid things require government funding. I've visited the remnants of this project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

12 hours ago, Rickendiver said:

Sorta been done before.  A bit before my time, but I knew people that worked on this project. REALLY stupid things require government funding. I've visited the remnants of this project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

Thanks. 

I knew there had been something like this, but couldn't remember it (or enough of it to find it).

IIRC, Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine did a story on it.

I remember that the article pointed out the fact that the nuke ramjet would have very radioactive exhaust. 
So, in addition to turning the target into the proverbial 'glass parking lot', it had the 'advantage' of leaving a path of contamination and death along the route it took from launch to target.

[riggerrob 558]

Project Pluto reminds us of the Exocet missiles fired by Argentina during the Falklands War (circa 1982). One Exocet missile did not explode after it hit a British ship, but the remaining jet fuel created massive fires which eventually sank the British warship.

Critics tried to blame the aluminum superstructure on the ship, but any metal will burn if you get it hot enough.

[Rickendiver 6]

Exactly- Besides being VERY easy to track, there’s the problem of what happens if it gets shot down, or blows up on the launch pad.

Nevada Test Site back in the 1980’s & 1990’s was like a time capsule of forgotten Cold War projects just lying around in the desert. Pluto, Plowshare, MX train system, etc. 

I worked there occasionally on the underground nuclear test program, and the subcritical tests after the Cold War ended.

[Bigfalls 110]

Now if we had a nuclear powered jump plane, it would only have to be fueled every few years. 

You could fuel it during the week so you wouldn't miss a weekend.

[senna_65 0]

lol, total BS. their "Nuclear reactor" is just a video of a tokamak, a fusion reactor..which ITER is currently building one which is the size of a masive warehouse and isnt expected to even produce a net gain for like 20 years. 

 

This is some bullshit "futurism". those engines are so hilarious as well, as turbofans have been getting bigger and bigger for more efficiency. Name of the game today is hi-bypass not strap on a ton of engines.

 

This is different from fission reactors which we have on submarines and aircraft carriers..which that wouldnt work as well. If the US decided to just continually fuel B-52s instead of have a nuclear powered plane...theres a reason for that.

[riggerrob 558]

On 7/28/2022 at 12:23 PM, senna_65 said:

lol, total BS. their "Nuclear reactor" is just a video of a tokamak, a fusion reactor..which ITER is currently building one which is the size of a masive warehouse and isnt expected to even produce a net gain for like 20 years. 

 

This is some bullshit "futurism". those engines are so hilarious as well, as turbofans have been getting bigger and bigger for more efficiency. Name of the game today is hi-bypass not strap on a ton of engines.

 

This is different from fission reactors which we have on submarines and aircraft carriers..which that wouldnt work as well. If the US decided to just continually fuel B-52s instead of have a nuclear powered plane...theres a reason for that.

Both the USAF and Soviet Air Force did experiment with nuclear-powered bombers during the 1960s. The USAF even flew a much-modified B-36 with a cold reactor onboard, but concluded that nuclear-powered airplanes were too heavy, too expensive and too dangerous.

[riggerrob 558]

Looks like originator Tony Holmston started with the silhouette of an SD-1, single-seater kitplane.