The price of gas

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:vxoqc.19775$gr.1626453@attbi_s52...
It was serious stuff, folks.

It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
problem of inevitable accidents.

"Nuclear Plane crashes -- Thousands Perish!" simply was unacceptable
then --
and now.

Except that thousands don't perish when other nuclear powered things crash,
even nuclear weapons.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:vxoqc.19775$gr.1626453@attbi_s52...
It was serious stuff, folks.

It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
problem of inevitable accidents.

"Nuclear Plane crashes -- Thousands Perish!" simply was unacceptable
then --
and now.

Except that thousands don't perish when other nuclear powered things
crash,
even nuclear weapons.

Three Mile Island spewed less radioactivity than Denver gets on a sunny day.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 at 07:43:49 in message
, C J Campbell
wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:vxoqc.19775$gr.1626453@attbi_s52...
It was serious stuff, folks.

It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
problem of inevitable accidents.

"Nuclear Plane crashes -- Thousands Perish!" simply was unacceptable
then --
and now.

Except that thousands don't perish when other nuclear powered things crash,
even nuclear weapons.

I remember someone talking about nuclear powered aircraft many years
ago. He said that it would solve one aviation problem; about the
placement of the cg. Wherever the reactor was placed, with its
shielding, that's where the cg would be. ;-)
--
David CL Francis

Jay Honeck wrote:

It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
problem of inevitable accidents.

Not true. They couldn't lick the shielding problem.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
problem of inevitable accidents.

Not true. They couldn't lick the shielding problem.


I think I'd just as soon not have JQ Public be buying sufficient quantities of
fissionable material to fly an airplane as a matter or course.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

In article vxoqc.19775$gr.1626453@attbi_s52, Jay Honeck wrote:
It was a fascinating concept, but they simply couldn't work around the
problem of inevitable accidents.

"Nuclear Plane crashes -- Thousands Perish!" simply was unacceptable then --
and now.

Nonsense. The nuclear airplane project was abandoned because the reactor
and the required shielding made the airplane too heavy to be practical.
The worst that would happen in a nuclear plane crash would be a very
expensive toxic materials clean-up.

CVBreard wrote:

In the 1950s (1960s?), there was a serious USAF project/study to use a nuclear
reactor to power a B-36..

No, they used a B-36 to carry a reactor up to run some tests to see how the reactor
behaved in flight. There was no proposal to power the B-36 with one. They *did* get
far enough along on a design for an atomic aircraft for one of the model companies
(Aurora, IIRC) to market a plastic kit of the plane during the early and mid 60s.

As part of the research, they also built two huge towers west of Oak Ridge, TN shaped
like goal posts. There was a containment building for a reactor core located between
the towers. The towers served as cranes to lift the reactor out of it's shell and
into the air for studies. Last time I looked, the towers were still visible from the
eastbound lanes of I-40 west of Knoxville.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:09:12 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:

There was no proposal to power the B-36 with one.

Well, of course it wasn't a B-36, but Convair did indeed have a
knockoff of the 36 on the drawing board with the reactor behind the
crew compartment.

Convair was desperate for any engine that would enable it to keep
building the 36. The Boeing B-52 was coming along fast.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

(CVBreard) wrote:

In the 1950s (1960s?), there was a serious USAF project/study to use a nuclear
reactor to power a B-36..

Come to my field any Saturday - there are lots of us flying
nuclear powered aircraft.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
[...]
Come to my field any Saturday - there are lots of us flying
nuclear powered aircraft.

Yeah, but your reactor is 93 million miles away, and unavailable at night.

But hey, on the plus side, it's the only practical fusion reactor I know of.


Pete