Talk:Nuclear-powered aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References for more research

I came across the concept of nuclear aircrafts in New Scientist ... and got a bit intrigued by it. I've done some research on it, and will probably try to do a little bit of work on wikipedia about it. Here is the references I've found:

and related articles at:

tobixen 10:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed you did not locate a copy of "Nuclear Flight, the United States Air Force Programs for Atomic Jets, Missiles, and Rockets." It was an official unclassified account of developments up to when it was published in 1960. I have a copy. Interesting if (predictably) rah-rah accounts. I think merger would be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Lincoln (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 July 2007

Soviet nuclear bomber hoax

Is it known who perpetrated the hoax? Was it Soviet disinformation, or a US ruse to acquire more funding for their own project, or a genuine misunderstanding or just mischief-making by Aviation Week? PhilUK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

After visiting the Idaho lab last summer and standing next to the two test reactors, I concluded that the whole project was nuts. No-one connected with that work could possibly have believed that nuclear bombers would one day be flying to Moscow. I've uploaded a picture, but it really doesn't convey the depths of futility that you get standing next to these Cold War relics. A billion 1960 dollars could have sent every US kid to university for a year! I really had no idea of the depths of national paranoia caused by the Cold War till I visited a demonstration Minuteman II silo in South Dakota last year, and Arco in 2009. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section's title needs to be changed. While the controversy over the alleged Soviet nuclear bomber is noteworthy, it's incorrect to call it a hoax because whether or not something is a hoax calls for a conclusion, and the article poses no grounds to draw that conclusion. As PhilUK suggested over a year ago, the story could have originated from sources who had no intentions of deceiving anyone. They could have been mistaken or misinterpreted what they saw. If credible references can be found to indicate that someone gave false information to AviationWeek with an intent to deceive (for whatever hidden agenda they might have had), then the word "hoax" would be appropriate. I'm thinking of a re-write or re-titling of the article section in question, but won't make any changes right now.JeffTracy (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree - with that title, the section would need to very carefully and well-sourced explain how it is a hoax. Volker Siegel (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Soviet nuclear plane

A Discovery Channel video on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cnFtYuqXX8&feature=related) claims that the USSR carried out about 40 test flights with a nuclear-powered plane between 1961 and 1969. It was a 'Bear' bomber with conventional turbo-props, but had 2 additional jet engines powered by a direct cycle reactor. This had minimal shielding, therefore irradiating the crew and the surrounding airspace. Of the two aircrews, only 3 men survived. This information conflicts with that in the article and in other web sources I have looked at, which state that both the USA and the USSR discontinued research into nuclear-powered aircraft after 1961. Anyone know more about this? PhilUK (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the aircraft in question is the Tupolev Tu-119. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the Discovery Channel video was bending the facts a little with its talk of minimal shielding and high death rates among the crew? The TU-119 article implies (or at least does not rule out) that a few flights were made with the reactor running and even perhaps powering the jet engines. If so, is this the only aeroplane ever to fly using nuclear power? PhilUK (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real US nuclear plane

A single NB-36 was built and flew in the USA between 1955 and 1957. It was a converted Convair B-36 Peacekeeper Bomber -- a truly huge aircraft. They did successfully prove the concept -- a bomber with essentially unlimited operational range in the 1950's!. This is referenced in this wiki article but only touched on and details are not provided. Advances in conventional bombers made the necessity for flying a nuclear reactor unnecessary. Military aircraft do, in fact, crash. Cleaning up crashes that involve crunched nuclear reactors was deemed -- something to be avoided. And so the concept never really "took off" so to speak. SunSw0rd (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the NB-36 (covered further in Convair X-6, I do believe) never was actually powered by the nuclear reactor it carried. Thee were no connections to any of the engines, merely proof of concept tests for an aerial reactor. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an article entitled "Take the A-Plane" in Discover magazine (as I recall) many years ago, giving a pretty thorough history of the U.S. atomic airplane project and the leading people involved. I can't find it online, though, sadly. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American nuclear UAV

Is the 2011 project worth a mention here?

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/03/25/no-go-on-a-nuclear-powered-unmanned-aerial-vehicle/

Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Aircraft

Logically , the chances that the Soviets, or the US, created secret programs for the development of unmanned , remotely piloted nuclear powered aircraft is quite high as the advantages of such a machine in nuclear war are incredible . The Soviets created unmanned moon exploring craft , and tested manned nuclear craft , so we know they had the technology . Shouldn't Wikipedia always consider the possibility that secret aircraft can exists and avoid statements like 'Neither country created any operational nuclear aircraft.' , in favor of statements like 'Neither country are known to have created any operational nuclear aircraft.' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.130.114 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions that nuclear-powered aircraft, manned or unmanned, were actually developed, even as black projects, are fringe theories at best. And what "unmanned moon exploring craft, and...manned nuclear craft" do you refer to? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curtiss-Wright experiments

Over at Quehanna_Wild_Area they say that Curtiss-Wright made experiments towards nuclear jet-engines in these Pennsylvania woods from 1955 to 1960. I guess some note about these projects should be inserted into the article if that's true. --BjKa (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do nuclear aircraft actually operate?

Given that the primary product of a nuclear reactor is heat energy, how does that translate into thrust for an aircraft? Steam turbines? If so, then is there a condensate recovery system on board or are they total-loss systems? Water tanks would need to be refilled otherwise.. The article doesn't seem to discuss the actual mechanics. --Hooperbloob (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they don't, actually. Apparently the intention was to build something that worked like a jet engine except instead of burning kerosene to make heat, they would split atoms to make heat. The history of the Cold War is littered with billion dollar insane projects like this. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By golly...the holes we leave in articles. Fixed this, thanks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of fusion power section

I reverted an IP editor who deleted this section a couple days ago because the edit summary was completely wrong. The edit summary of Wtshymanski was also not very good. The fusion reactors under development today (ITER, Wendelstein 7-X, and the Lockheed Martin CFR) have nothing to do with the physically impossible technology (for example, warp drive) that is the basis of Star Trek.

The Lockheed Martin CFR is a notable technology under development. Lockheed Martin clearly intends for it to ultimately be used in aircraft and spacecraft (and elsewhere). It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to decide whether a developing technology will succeed or not.

I don't see any problem with a section on fusion-powered aircraft with a link to the Lockheed Martin CFR article. It should probably note that the project is behind schedule (as fusion reactor projects usually are). Jrheller1 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably confine ourselves to facts in the encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The problem, unhelpful snarky edits summaries aside, is that this isn't a substantive proposal to power specific aircraft types or even prototypes. In fact, we don't know if the reactor design will ever be successful. Until then , it should be left out. To be honest, as a major contributor to the Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor article, I wanted to keep the mention, but I can't for the reasons I gave. - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why stop with fusion powered airplanes? Work with Tesla and make fusion powered automobiles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lockheed Martin CFR project has also not released any details about plasma temperature and confinement time in their prototypes, so this makes it especially dubious as a power source for anything. Since no one seems to want this section in the article, I don't object to deleting it. Jrheller1 (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are already up to 20 electron volts! They're only 20 million electron volts shy of a break-even reactor. Sell your kerosene refinery stock - fusion jets are just around the corner. And hey, that would make the jet pack pack finally practical for mass transportation. But seriously, given the grim record of "fusion is 20 years away" for the last 70 years, until someone shows a bulb lit by fusion, it's all smoke. It's a bit like the Pons/Fleischman cold fusion debacle of 30 years ago - wasn't LM also said to be interested in that ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:CRYSTAL as to why this does not belong. 81.129.194.138 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Powered Aircraft

Going thru old items of my grandfather's I came across photos and other documents re: HTRE 1,2 AND 3 from GE when he was a model maker. Is anyone interested in this material for archive or museum purposes? Contact me @ dgeminied@yahoo.com. My name is David 166.181.251.138 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RTG power

Would an RTG powered aircraft fit the scope of this article? 2001:A62:1494:C902:2934:81FD:9C3D:4AC6 (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But are there any? I'd like to read about that, my expectation is that the power to weight ratio of an RTG makes it useless for aircraft propulsion. Even spacecraft only use RTGs for electric power in deep space, not for propulsion, to my limited knowledge. Cite it and write it, please! --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sole power source of the Mars Rover Perseverance (rover) is an RTG. If Perseverance rather than its own solar cell were the power source of Ingenuity (helicopter), that would make the latter nuclear powered.

Given that this article to my knowledge describes something that was never actually built, we could at least add a sentence about RTGs. Who knows, maybe NASA even wrote something about their internal debates on power sources for extraterestial aircraft.... 2001:A62:144B:A02:6C97:857B:DE5A:ECC2 (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Perseverance rover is not an aircraft. NPguy (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]