G.E. on nuclear aviation propulsion

Status
Not open for further replies.
A nuclear plane will not make contrails, since there is no water-containing combustion exhaust. Also the operational nuclear bomber wouldn't have been a B-36, but if it were the propellers would be shut down or removed entirely for nuclear flight. The nuclear engines are jets.

Still, the thing could not possibly be stealthy at all.

I've never seen anything about how these systems would deal with decay heat. When any reactor is shut down from full power operation, it continues to make a large amount of heat (and radiation) for several hours to days. How would that be dealt with in case of a blown engine, or even routine maintenance after landing the plane?

Also the atomic bombs on board would need to be well shielded from reactor radiation. Neutrons hitting the fissile material in a bomb induce fission. Though this wouldn't lead to a chain reaction or an explosion, the core would heat up likely to the extent that the bomb is damaged. They would also induce delayed neutron production in the core, which could make the bomb "fizzle" when dropped instead of exploding properly.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
kschachn...missile technology overtook the bomber programme.


True but during the days when G.E. was fulfilling its contract work on
the NB36 the "USAF favored the development of an atomic powered bomber
over Missiles because they wanted to keep manned aircraft as integral
part of the deterrent force. Missiles were not showing a great deal
of promise". so the 1st priority for the ANP bomber 2nd was for
strategic missiles... source 1963 AEC paper...
 
That's the Air Force trying to hold on to their weapons and funding. A solution was reached by putting the ICBM arsenal under command of the USAF instead of the Army.
 
Originally Posted By: mk378
That's the Air Force trying to hold on to their weapons and funding.


True...
The B36 was also a the symbol of a bitter inter service rivalry
between the newly formed Air Force and the well established Navy over
funding... The Navy wanted CVA-58 USS UNITED STATES super carrier and
the USAF wanted the "Big Stick" B36 program

As a result, in-fighting amongst the nation’s armed services continued
and even increased, despite Congressional support of the supercarrier
concept. At one point, the majority of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
maintained that the ships’ main function would be a duplication of a
primary role of the Air Force. James Forrestal, first Secretary of
Defense and a former Secretary of the Navy vehemently disagreed.

This dispute, plus others in which President Truman and Forrestal had
strong differing opinions about the necessity to maintain a strong
Navy led to Forrestal’s forced resignation in March of 1949. Truman
picked Louis Johnson, to replace Forrestal.

Johnson’s extreme bias against the Navy was crystallized by this
statement, made shortly after he became the second Secretary of
Defense:

“The Navy is on its way out. There’s no reason for having a Navy and a
Marine Corps. We’ll never have any more amphibious operations. That
does away with the Marine Corps. The Air Force can do anything the
Navy can, so that does away with the Navy”.

Johnson soon underscored that opinion by proposing drastic budget cuts
for the Navy. Alarmed, Navy brass asked NNS to expedite the keel
laying for CVA-58. This ‘hurry-up’ and seemingly symbolic act was
conducted on Easter Monday morning, April 18, 1949. Instead of
customary double bottom sub-assemblies, the keel for NNS Hull #486
consisted of just several bottom plates. There was no official
ceremony. The event was witnessed by just a few workmen and the
shipyard’s photographer.

The Navy may have won a tactical victory that day, but just six days
later, the Air Force won a much greater strategic victory (and boasted
of ‘sinking’ a carrier). Without consulting Congress, Defense
Secretary Louis Johnson ordered cancellation of the USS UNITED STATES
on April 23, 1949 and diverted CVA-58 funding to the B-36 bomber
program...

The Navy would have to wait for the Korean War to get the carriers they dreamed about...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Even though 1 Roentgens per hour is considered safe... a separate shield was more popular with crews at 0.25 Roentgens per hour...


Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' that I wasn't previously aware of...

Yes, 1 Roentgen per hour won't kill you on a flight to the Soviet Union and back. But it would mean the crews would only be allowed something like ten hours of flight time ever in peacetime before exceeding lifetime allowed radiation limits. Which isn't really a lot of time to learn to fly the thing.

Edit: actually, it looks like in 1950 military personnel would have been allowed 15-25 a year. So maybe one hour of flight time a week at the 0.25 per hour rate.

http://news.mit.edu/1994/safe-0105
 
Always so sad that it is ok if it only kills you a little bit. Or very slowly.

Individual tolerance of radiation exposure is extremely unique to the individual. Some folks have amazing tolerance.

Me, I like my telomeres the way they are...
 
Oddly enough, there's some evidence that exposure to low levels of radiation is actually beneficial. I'd guess it helps kill off senescent cells, which are known to cause many problems in the body.

And I'm not sure what counts as 'low' in that case. I'm guessing it's much less than 1 Roentgen per hour.
 
Originally Posted By: JLawrence08648
With current technology TODAY, this is impossible, back then a waste of money to even do a proposal, and stupid for thinking it would work. Nuclear needs a water source for two things, for cooling off the rods to prevent a meltdown, then for propulsion to create steam to run an impeller to drive a shaft that drives a generator to create electricity.


Completely wrong.

It didn't work like a heated-water nuclear reactor.

It was completely a gas turbine system. The gas turbine engines were started using jet fuel, the reactor was brought to criticality, then valves redirected airflow out of the compressor sections of the engines, through the reactor core, where it picked up energy (heat) to drive the turbines, which, in turn, powered the compressors, creating thrust.

Yes, it was complicated, and, yes, it would have been a disaster if one had crashed.

The Russians have been talking real big about having a nuclear-powered cruise missile lately. Well, we had a ground-prototype (that actually proved the concept)with a running nuclear reactor core way back in the 60s, but we canceled it because ballistic missiles had come so far. Also, we didn't want to provoke the Soviets into building one too.
 
nukeplane4.jpg
 
Even if Russia has a nuclear-powered cruise missile, it’s a moot point. They don’t want to be destroyed in a doomsday scenario, which they obviously would be if they ever tried to use such a weapon.

If you think about it, it’s a lot like a dude who has “a little one” buying a big huge diesel pickup truck and putting a big lift kit on it. He’s compensating.

They know they’re FAR outclassed in any sort of conventional warfare, so they have to carry a big nuclear stick.

And honestly they’re felt intimidated and felt they needed to compensate for decades and decades. Everything we build, they have to one-up us and make one a little bigger. Just look at their airplanes and helicopters. And the Ekronoplan, fer cryin our loud.
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer


It was completely a gas turbine system. The gas turbine engines were started using jet fuel, the reactor was brought to criticality, then valves redirected airflow out of the compressor sections of the engines, through the reactor core, where it picked up energy (heat) to drive the turbines, which, in turn, powered the compressors, creating thrust.


True... on the drawing board was Convair's next step the X6... In
operations the X6 would take off and climb to test altitude using the
six R4360 piston popping re-spits and four J47 turbojets the four
J53/X40 atomic engines arranged in a horizontal bank under the
fuselage would be idling using JP4 (kerosene) the reactor would be
shut down for safety reasons... Once the correct altitude was reached
the reactor would be made critical and the four atomic engines would
be spooled up using the chemical fuel... Once the X40s were up to
speed they would switch to reactor power... the other 10 engines would
be shut down or idled...When it came time to land the whole procedure
would be reversed... Mercy imagine the checklist to that routine...


 
Originally Posted By: BusyLittleShop
Originally Posted By: john_pifer


It was completely a gas turbine system. The gas turbine engines were started using jet fuel, the reactor was brought to criticality, then valves redirected airflow out of the compressor sections of the engines, through the reactor core, where it picked up energy (heat) to drive the turbines, which, in turn, powered the compressors, creating thrust.


True... on the drawing board was Convair's next step the X6... In
operations the X6 would take off and climb to test altitude using the
six R4360 piston popping re-spits and four J47 turbojets the four
J53/X40 atomic engines arranged in a horizontal bank under the
fuselage would be idling using JP4 (kerosene) the reactor would be
shut down for safety reasons... Once the correct altitude was reached
the reactor would be made critical and the four atomic engines would
be spooled up using the chemical fuel... Once the X40s were up to
speed they would switch to reactor power... the other 10 engines would
be shut down or idled...When it came time to land the whole procedure
would be reversed... Mercy imagine the checklist to that routine...





As an A&P mechanic...all I can think of is the COMPLEXITY! Sheesh!!
 
Originally Posted By: emg
Oddly enough, there's some evidence that exposure to low levels of radiation is actually beneficial. I'd guess it helps kill off senescent cells, which are known to cause many problems in the body.

And I'm not sure what counts as 'low' in that case. I'm guessing it's much less than 1 Roentgen per hour.

The mechanism is a gearing up of the cell's natural ability to repair damage to the DNA. Just as a vaccine triggers the immune system to produce antibodies, the low radiation dose stimulates the cell's DNA repair mechanisms resulting in faster repair of DNA damage.

Here's an article that gives an idea of the radiation levels that seem to be effective:
http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.2307/3579298

Worldwide average background radiation is 0.24 cGy a year. It would appear that the protection phenomenon is in the low single to low double digit multiples of background absorbed dose. One roengen/hour = 7682 cGy/yr, which is right at 32,000 times yearly background absorbed dose. Exposure to 1 roentgen/hour for one hour results in 3.65 years of average background radiation absorbed dose. Maybe 1-10 hours in the plane might be beneficial, after that, not so much?

Ed
 
Four turbines right next to each other; if one blows the rest will go like dominoes. Of course the reactor will SCRAM but it's still going to melt down due to lack of air to carry away decay heat. Not much to do then but bail out and hope whoever is below doesn't mind too much.

Also the mock-up plane doesn't seem to have any space to carry bombs. Which was the whole point.
 
Originally Posted By: mk378


Also the mock-up plane doesn't seem to have any space to carry bombs. Which was the whole point.


The X6 mock up was only a proof of concept design... it bombed before it could be built...
 
That's some great 1960s tech footage!

Too bad we couldn't have maintained the trajectory, technology-wise, that we were on at that time. We'd have space planes that could take off like a typical airplane, then accelerate into space and go orbital or sub-orbital, re-enter the atmosphere, and you could be anywhere in the world in an hour or two.

But several things ruined that (JFK assassination, Vietnam, Watergate, OPEC crisis, recession of the late 70s, etc.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

97K15004WD
Introduction to Nuclear Propulsion- Introduction and Background Lecture 1
Replies
4
Views
411
97K15004WD
Jackson_Slugger
NASA Tasks Lockheed to Design Nuclear Space Propulsion
Replies
6
Views
1K
Cujet
OVERKILL
Seismic qualification of nuclear plants
2
Replies
23
Views
817
OVERKILL
OVERKILL
Ontario Nuclear Update: March 21st, 2023
Replies
4
Views
628
OVERKILL
OVERKILL
Ontario Nuclear Update - June 24th, 2023
Replies
15
Views
1K
OVERKILL
Back
Top