# [SG] Nuclear-powered aircraft so large other aircraft can land on them in our future?



## Teppich

If they make one and it crashes, I hope im not anywhere near it haha


----------



## Haze_hellivo

I would like to see the airport for it to land,this doesnt seem like a good idea think of the consequences if it crashes.


----------



## slipstream808

While a TON of questions and concerns come to my mind...

I can't stop thinking about this thing taking off or landing. And how big would it'd runway have to be??


----------



## Oupavoc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Teppich;15446847*
> If they make one and it crashes, I hope im not anywhere near it haha


lol i never taught about that...the sheer size of it, it will take out many city blocks!!!


----------



## Haze_hellivo

I would like to see the airport for it to land,this its a bad idea think of the consequences if it crashes.


----------



## trueg50

So basically they want a clean-nuclear, or cold fusion powered plane? I won't hold my breath that they will get cold fusion working, or that contained in most of my lifetime.

The thought in the 1950/60's was that big aircraft could be nuclear powered; the thought died quickly though after realizing they needed several feet of lead to protect the crew, and that plane crashes are common, and could dump lots of radioactive material all over the place. I wonder what nuclear reaction they are thinking of that can operate without shielding, or radioactive material?


----------



## 8ight

Arkbird much? Damn.


----------



## Oupavoc

i know right, must have horrible blind spots!!!


----------



## somebodysb2

It looks ridiculous.


----------



## Reslivo

But what's the point?


----------



## Reslivo

Double.


----------



## Oupavoc

if i learned anything in physics class this is going to be hard to do, look at the size of this thing, plus other planes weight ect...


----------



## Psykhotic

It obv's won't fit in an airport however, look at cruise ships. If this was built as a seafaring craft it could be built in the dry docks that already exist and take off from sea. The ocean is a pretty big landing strip.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trueg50;15446893*
> So basically they want a clean-nuclear, or cold fusion powered plane? I won't hold my breath that they will get cold fusion working, or that contained in most of my lifetime.
> 
> The thought in the 1950/60's was that big aircraft could be nuclear powered; the thought died quickly though after realizing they needed several feet of lead to protect the crew, and that plane crashes are common, and could dump lots of radioactive material all over the place. I wonder what nuclear reaction they are thinking of that can operate without shielding, or radioactive material?


Yup. To call nuclear powered aircraft "wild" or "new" is to not know aircraft history.


----------



## OCcomet

Perhaps they could design it to take off/land vertically?


----------



## andrews2547

I wonder how much it would cost to build one


----------



## MRoFlare

Shield!


----------



## trueg50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OCcomet;15446964*
> Perhaps they could design it to take off/land vertically?


It is many times more difficult to take off vertically, and needs far more power to do so then to take off conventionally.


----------



## kaxel

I don't see why they need to turn it on and off at will. They could just turn off the motors, they don't need to stop the reaction.


----------



## Stealth Pyros




----------



## mfb412

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OCcomet;15446964*
> Perhaps they could design it to take off/land vertically?


With what, three million jet engines?


----------



## Jcyle

Yo dawg, I heard you like flying plane... No wait..


----------



## Setzer

Landing on a moving object (even a flying object) is no easy task, even if the aircraft could be built, it'd be a PIA to land on it.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stealth Pyros;15447010*


You realize that 747 aircraft in particular has one of the most hilarious engineer-humor bit ever on it?


----------



## N3G4T1v3

How would a Nuclear reactor power the engine?
Super heated steam through a turbine?

1st thing that came to mind when seeing Nuclear-powered aircraft, was the X1 from The Venture Brothers


----------



## Furore

As the F-35 JSF is probably the last manned attack aircraft that will ever be built. I see most air defense platforms going smaller, running on more efficient engines/fuel systems, and unmanned. If anything, a "flying fortress" so to speak will be helium/hydrogen based as it requires alot less maintenance to keep in the air.

Just the 2c from an Army guy...


----------



## r4zr

The most powerful ability of a design like this is a mid-oceanic position, while keeping repositioned to avoid bad weather.

I would be interested in the commercial viability of such a design. Military applications are obvious.


----------



## ilhe4e12345

did anyone else first picture in their minds the flying fortress things from Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow?


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oupavoc;15446939*
> if i learned anything in physics class this is going to be hard to do, look at the size of this thing, plus other planes weight ect...


Physics says size doesn't matter.... it is all about lift, drag, weight, and thrust.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trueg50;15446893*
> So basically they want a clean-nuclear, or cold fusion powered plane? I won't hold my breath that they will get cold fusion working, or that contained in most of my lifetime.
> 
> The thought in the 1950/60's was that big aircraft could be nuclear powered; the thought died quickly though after realizing they needed several feet of lead to protect the crew, and that plane crashes are common, and could dump lots of radioactive material all over the place. I wonder what nuclear reaction they are thinking of that can operate without shielding, or radioactive material?


My concern would be that this is an extremely complex machine. If downtime is needed or there is an issue,the thing cannot just stop like a ship or sub.


----------



## Yuki457

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oupavoc;15446807*
> Wouldnt the sheer size and wright makes this almost impossible to build and keep it im the sky?


Isn't it just a question of power? enough power would keep anything in the air.

Getting it in the air from the ground, standing however might take some doing, maybe they'll put the pieces together in space + just drop it from orbit?


----------



## RonindeBeatrice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Psykhotic;15446946*
> It obv's won't fit in an airport however, look at cruise ships. If this was built as a seafaring craft it could be built in the dry docks that already exist and take off from sea. The ocean is a pretty big landing strip.


Beat me to it. One of the largest aircraft built to date is the Howard Hughes H4 Hercules, or Spruce Goose, a sea plane.

This would also not mark the first time that aircraft have launched from other aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_%28ZRS-4%29


----------



## ZealotKi11er

With that size its impossible. That would take 100 year just in R&D. On top of that we never build something that big. If we are going to build something that big it better be for space (Anyone seen Macross)


----------



## trueg50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo;15447177*
> My concern would be that this is an extremely complex machine. If downtime is needed or there is an issue,the thing cannot just stop like a ship or sub.


That too!

How much supplies will this carry? How much fuel for the airliners? How will it be resupplied? How will human and other waste be disposed of? What if a plane coming into land hits this craft?


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Reslivo;15446910*
> But what's the point?


Have this thing circle the world. Let planes land on it if they're going the same direction. You now only need the nuclear reactor for moving 50 planes at once thus saving fuel.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trueg50;15446893*
> The thought in the 1950/60's was that big aircraft could be nuclear powered; the thought died quickly though after realizing they needed several feet of lead to protect the crew, and that plane crashes are common, and could dump lots of radioactive material all over the place. I wonder what nuclear reaction they are thinking of that can operate without shielding, or radioactive material?


Lead to protect the crew isn't a problem. This thing would be big enough to support other aircraft landing on it. I'll assume that they want normal 747's or something to land on it, so it'd need a strong, heavy exterior in the first place. And think of the scale. If it needs a runway, you'll already have a plane so gigantic that 10 meters would be nothing.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oupavoc;15446807*
> Wouldnt the sheer size and wright makes this almost impossible to build and keep it im the sky?


Obviously not.

Aircraft can be made arbitrarily large. With enough power and lift, anything can fly.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Teppich;15446847*
> If they make one and it crashes, I hope im not anywhere near it haha


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Haze_hellivo;15446874*
> I would like to see the airport for it to land,this doesnt seem like a good idea think of the consequences if it crashes.


You don't want to be any where near a fully fueled conventional airliner when it crashes either.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trueg50;15446893*
> The thought in the 1950/60's was that big aircraft could be nuclear powered; the thought died quickly though after realizing they needed several feet of lead to protect the crew, and that plane crashes are common, and could dump lots of radioactive material all over the place. I wonder what nuclear reaction they are thinking of that can operate without shielding, or radioactive material?


Several feet of lead?

There have been reactors used to power subs and ships since the 50s that do not need any where near that kind of shielding.

The weight of old reactors and their shielding was prohibitive, but the real problem was the cost of making the power to weight ratio usable.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Reslivo;15446910*
> But what's the point?


Efficiency.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Setzer;15447038*
> Landing on a moving object (even a flying object) is no easy task, even if the aircraft could be built, it'd be a PIA to land on it.


Not any more so than landing on an aircraft carrier, and not with current levels of automation.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er;15447244*
> With that size its impossible. That would take 100 year just in R&D. On top of that we never build something that big. If we are going to build something that big it better be for space (Anyone seen Macross)


Not impossible. Bigger things have been built, and they did not take 100 years of R&D.

Biggest problem is by far the LENR. Everything else is fairly trivial.


----------



## Nioxic

So basically, an airport with wings?

sounds like a good idea..

but there should be more than one..


----------



## Narzon

Any risks this might (and will) have in my mind are instantly counteracted by my fascination and human pride. I want us to have this thing in the air. Obviously we don't want it taking off from JFK and flying past Boston and Chicago.. that's hardly the risk.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless;15447341*
> Several feet of lead?
> 
> There have been reactors used to power subs and ships since the 50s that do not need any where near that kind of shielding.
> 
> The weight of old reactors and their shielding was prohibitive, but the real problem was the cost of making the power to weight ratio usable.
> 
> Efficiency.


Actually, one of the big issues way back when in trying to get the damn thing to work in theory was coming up with a way of transforming the thermal power of a nuclear source into propulsive energy for an aircraft. I don't think they ever came up with a plausible way to even do that, NVM the lift and power needs.


----------



## CAHOP240

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oupavoc;15446807*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> Wouldnt the sheer size and wright makes this almost impossible to build and keep it im the sky?


That's what they said about the Titanic


----------



## Maxxa

Maybe they could build it while it's in the air flying then just never land it.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Double post, third time OCN lags up and does this today.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maxxa;15447421*
> Maybe they could build it while it's in the air flying then just never land it.


And maybe being that high up, it can be fully solar powered, lol. Then it would only ever have to land for maintenance, unless even that can be done in the air.


----------



## trueg50

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless;15447341*
> Several feet of lead?
> 
> There have been reactors used to power subs and ships since the 50s that do not need any where near that kind of shielding.
> 
> The weight of old reactors and their shielding was prohibitive, but the real problem was the cost of making the power to weight ratio usable.


Quote:


> The NB-36H carried the reactor in its aft bomb bay and incorporated a new nose section, which housed a 12 ton lead and rubber shielded crew compartment with 10-12 inch (25-30 centimeters) thick leaded-glass windows. Water pockets in the fuselage and behind the crew compartment also absorbed radiation (due to weight constraints, nothing was done to shield the considerable emissions from the top, bottom or sides of the reactor)." (Source: Brookings Institute)


Reports seem to vary, this one says 12 tons, others say 80 tons of protection. It may be that it was initially 80 tons, but dropped to 12 tons of directional shielding (only the front part of the plane).

The US navy doesn't talk about certain things, but I seem to remember the lead shielding as being around 3 feet thick on typical submarines.


----------



## amorph

Ace Combat much?


----------



## sausageson

carrier has arrived!


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;15447398*
> Actually, one of the big issues way back when in trying to get the damn thing to work in theory was coming up with a way of transforming the thermal power of a nuclear source into propulsive energy for an aircraft. I don't think they ever came up with a plausible way to even do that, NVM the lift and power needs.


The same method that turns the thermal energy from the reactor into mechanical energy for making electricity or propelling a ship would work with aircraft.

This could probably have been made to work even in the 50s, but there would have been little payload left for anything useful. It could certainly be done now, but there are other concerns that make such a thing impractical.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CAHOP240;15447400*
> That's what they said about the Titanic


I'm pretty sure they didn't.


----------



## Carniflex

Using hot air balloons to float this thing might be energetically more feasible.


----------



## garudaeagle1

HELICARRIER. Its been in comics for ages.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless;15447501*
> The same method that turns the thermal energy from the reactor into mechanical energy for making electricity or propelling a ship would work with aircraft.
> 
> This could probably have been made to work even in the 50s, but there would have been little payload left for anything useful. It could certainly be done now, but there are other concerns that make such a thing impractical.


You're suggesting a steam engine and a return to propeller driven aircraft? Because electrical generation techniques haven't changed much at all in a century. The only thing that has changed is how you boil water to make steam.


----------



## Paradox me

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amorph;15447462*
> Ace Combat much?


I came into the thread hoping to see an Ace Combat reference. It took five pages, but you got there nonetheless.


----------



## Stealth Pyros

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oupavoc;15446807*
> Wouldnt the sheer size and wright makes this almost impossible to build and keep it im the sky?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CAHOP240;15447400*
> That's what they said about the Titanic


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless;15447501*
> I'm pretty sure they didn't.


LOL. Blameless, I'm not sure if you meant that as a joke.

"Wouldn't the sheer size and weight make this almost impossible to build and *keep it in the sky?*" (About the *Titanic*)


----------



## Chunkylad

Hm, now to make that in the shape of a Protoss carrier and we would be set.


----------



## kabj06

News excerpt from 2041:

Large, nuclear powered aircraft crashes in US mainland, 200 miles of land has now been wiped out by explosion/radiation.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trueg50;15447443*
> Reports seem to vary, this one says 12 tons, others say 80 tons of protection. It may be that it was initially 80 tons, but dropped to 12 tons of directional shielding (only the front part of the plane).
> 
> The US navy doesn't talk about certain things, but I seem to remember the lead shielding as being around 3 feet thick on typical submarines.


Several feet would have been weight prohibitive for an air craft. In the reactor test we are refering to, I'm positive the shielding was directional. Otherwise they would not have needed to sheild the cockpit windows as well.

Regarding Naval reactors, I've heard "over 100 tons" of lead shielding as being typical (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/reactor.html), but even 100 tons of lead probably isn't several feet thick when talking about the volume of a reactor chamber on a capital ship. Still, I suppose it's possible.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;15447528*
> You're suggesting a steam engine and a return to propeller driven aircraft? Because electrical generation techniques haven't changed much at all in a century. The only thing that has changed is how you boil water to make steam.


Yes, I'm suggesting a reactor attached to a turbine attached to a generator making electricity for electric motors.

How else would they do it?


----------



## Bo_Punk_2.0

And here's a little tutorial on how to shoot down such a megaplane. True story!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwLORA8-D0[/ame]


----------



## DrDarkTempler

I think is a good concept idea for space craft like mothership but for usage inside earth not a good idea


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex;15447510*
> Using hot air balloons to float this thing might be energetically more feasible.


Hot air balloons don't provide enough lift and might interfere with incoming aircraft. How much helium/hydrogen would be needed to lift a 747?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/helium2.htm
747 = 975,000 lb

For a single 747, a rough estimate is a 320ft diameter helium balloon but not accounting for lower air density and impluse of landing aircraft.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kabj06;15447606*
> News excerpt from 2041:
> 
> Large, nuclear powered aircraft crashes in US mainland, 200 miles of land has now been wiped out by explosion/radiation.


Dude.

The Soviet Union launched MANY full fledged nuclear reactors into orbit on test satellites...and all of them came plunging back down. Your fear are by and large silly, even if this engineers pipe-dream ever did take off.


----------



## Yuki457

For some reason I keep thinking of the Damocles from Code Geass.......


----------



## Icekilla

looks like somebody has been playing Ace Combat... A lot...









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8ight;15446894*
> Arkbird much? Damn.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amorph;15447462*
> Ace Combat much?


EDIT: Beat me to it! lol


----------



## 8ight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless;15447501*
> The same method that turns the thermal energy from the reactor into mechanical energy for making electricity or propelling a ship would work with aircraft.


So this will be driven by propellers? Because with the thrust they produce at any reasonable size that doesn't seem practical.


----------



## Thingamajig




----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo;15447686*
> Hot air balloons don't provide enough lift and might interfere with incoming aircraft. How much helium/hydrogen would be needed to lift a 747?


Giant lighter than air or hybrid aircraft are probably much more feasible than LENR.

Helium has a lifting capacity of just over 1kg per cubic meter. The 747-8 has a maximum take off weight of 442,000kg.

The largest air ships ever built have lift capacities well within an order of magnitude of this, and they could be made an order of magnitude larger.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8ight;15447809*
> So this will be driven by propellers? Because with the thrust they produce at any reasonable size that doesn't seem practical.


I have no idea what they are planning to do with this. There is really nothing preventing an electric motor from driving a high speed fan like the kind that modern high-bypass turbofan engines use to develop ~80% of their thrust. Instead of having a turbojet in the center, an electric motor or gearbox would work.


----------



## Yuzu

concept is awesome, but I bet it'll be like the zepplins.. one little mistake and the botch the entire project.


----------



## j0zef

When I saw this, my first thought was "Titanic of the 21st century".


----------



## 8ight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless;15447923*
> I have no idea what they are planning to do with this. There is really nothing preventing an electric motor from driving a high speed fan like the kind that modern high-bypass turbofan engines use to develop ~80% of their thrust. Instead of having a turbojet in the center, an electric motor or gearbox would work.


I would think in this application a low-bypass turbofan style engine that is driven by a high-efficiency brushless electric motor would be the most practical solution. High-bypass engines only serve to increase fuel efficiency and reduce noise which would be no matter when no fuel is being burned within them. The high thrust lapse rate of a high-bypass turbofan engine would not help something of this size in taking off or reaching higher speeds, either.


----------



## weaselciuy

when that thing crashes...and one will...people will have to buy helmets.


----------



## andrews2547

If it actually gets built is it going to be the modern day equivalent of aircraft carrier ships?


----------



## 3ncrypted

Al Qaedas dream


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Titan Spotted!


----------



## willis888

It seems like landing on it would be even harder than landing on a carrier - I imagine the turbulence behind such a large flying object would be fierce.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Psykhotic;15446946*
> It obv's won't fit in an airport however, look at cruise ships. If this was built as a seafaring craft it could be built in the dry docks that already exist and take off from sea. The ocean is a pretty big landing strip.


That's what I thought too. Build it to take off and land on waves, and keep it over the ocean during flight in case it crashes.


----------



## subliminally incorrect

its liek something straight out of Ace combat 6!


----------



## Blaze051806

i can see the lonely island boys remix now... ima on a plane and its really big and...


----------



## darthjoe229

Really surprised no one mentioned this...










Makes sense though. Weight's not an issue if you can manually produce enough downward thrust, and with nuclear reactors I'm guessing energy will be handily available. It's only natural for us to try and expand our reach, and aircraft carriers are currently limited to places within a few hundred miles of coastline. These can go anywhere, literally.


----------



## BrutusMaximus

I wonder if they made it hey probly would never have to land except for repairs. It would be like an aircraft carrier always in operation. I think it would be a flying aircraft carrier. with a whole crew 24/7 operation. I wouldn't be surprised if the US would be very interested in building a few of these.


----------



## BlackVenom

Interesting idea... landing is the hardest part... make a plane that only lands after months.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Teppich;15446847*
> If they make one and it crashes, I hope im not anywhere near it haha


It would be an expensive aircraft... they'd take care of it and it wouldn't crash

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZCp5h1gK2Q[/ame]


----------



## Domino

cant find anything on how it is propelled? any ideas?


----------



## QuackPot

Hindenburg Mk2.


----------



## Psykhotic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willis888;15448320*
> It seems like landing on it would be even harder than landing on a carrier - I imagine the turbulence behind such a large flying object would be fierce.


I was just thinking this.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Haze_hellivo;15446889*
> I would like to see the airport for it to land,this its a bad idea think of the consequences if it crashes.


air refuel after you get the bugger off the ground. or you build in space


----------



## Robilar

I don't see how crashing is the concern. We have nuclear ships and submarines that also pose crashing hazards.

Nuclear power is the best viable alternative for conventional fuels. Once enough advances occur in minimizing sheilding requirements, it could be a great solution.

Also the reactor required to power an aircraft would be much smaller than those used in power stations and definitely smaller than what is currently used in aircraft carriers. It would be in line with the specs on nuclear submarines.

If a plane crashed with this type of engine, the worst case would be heavy water contamination over a small area. It's very easy to build in automatic safeguards that would shut the reactor down in the event of a potential crash.


----------



## toddville393

I think this is a great idea, I just think they're going about it wrong. Why a plane? Remember the aircraft carriers in Sky Captain an the World of Tomorrow? They were more like helicopters. Makes more sense to me and seems like a simpler build. But with the plane design there's one thing they forgot. If your traveling at 700mph an the object your trying to land on is traveling 700mph you don't even need a landing strip. You just connect to the landing vehicle an cut your engines. You have to think outside conventional ways of doing things sometimes. I do like the Sky Carrier Concept thought from the movie.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *toddville393;15449138*
> I think this is a great idea, I just think they're going about it wrong. Why a plane? Remember the aircraft carriers in Sky Captain an the World of Tomorrow? They were more like helicopters. Makes more sense to me and seems like a simpler build. But with the plane design there's one thing they forgot. If your traveling at 700mph an the object your trying to land on is traveling 700mph you don't even need a landing strip. You just connect to the landing vehicle an cut your engines. You have to think outside conventional ways of doing things sometimes. I do like the Sky Carrier Concept thought from the movie.


seems like they are going to need propellar propultion in order to keep the puppies in the air. ion propulsion is not going to make these magically stay in the air for montha under our air resistance.


----------



## willis888

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar;15449007*
> I don't see how crashing is the concern.


It's not the radiation that scares me - I assume it would use a cleaner, safer form of reactor where a crash would not produce radiation hazards.

The thing is massive and would have enormous kinetic energy. Impact would be meteoric. Imagine 5 LHC beams tearing through downtown NYC. It would flatten everything in a straight line for miles.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *toddville393;15449138*
> I think this is a great idea, I just think they're going about it wrong. ... more like helicopters.


Anything trying to land on that would be sucked into the propellers.


----------



## Jayce1971

Don't they need to develop cold fusion, first? Otherwise, how are they gonna cool the reactor... drag a large lake behind it?







Maybe a couple of Noctua's bolted on to the main reactor?


----------



## linkinparkfan007

Just have a giant magnet on both planes which attract them to the plane







No runway required. Dunno about take off though


----------



## mth91

This is the aigaion from ace combat 6


----------



## mnkeyprince

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slipstream808;15446876*
> While a TON of questions and concerns come to my mind...
> 
> I can't stop thinking about this thing taking off or landing. And how big would it'd runway have to be??


lol they make a runway the size of a state jsut to maintain and fly a fleet of them


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Why would it need a runway? Couldn't the planes just detach from it or drive off the edge? "Landing" might be difficult, but we can already get a fuel hose to a plane while inflight. I'd think a system could be made to do the job. Planes with virtical take off tech could land on it like a kite if they had a tether pulling them down.

Any cross wind dangers would be just as dangerous for a runway landing...if not more so.

As for the huge plane its self...I would assume it would land and take off on water or use VTO.


----------



## Nocturin

I wanna play ace combat now!

I was also wondering about propulsion, do we have electric motors that can maintain high rpm, high torque now?

EDIT: Landing isn't the issue as long as both planes are going the same speed.
That would be the easy part, as long as the structure of the super-structure can handle the weight.


----------



## DiNet

Dunno about you i got only question: Why do we need airport in sky? 0.o

And it looks more like tax payers money getting heavily wasted.


----------



## cook

I bet this thing would have to be launched like a challenger rocket and will end up landing in the water. It would be neat to have a mobile runway in the sky, or even city in the sky, which is clearly what this technology will give way to.

I am more interested in its defense system than the actual plane itself. It would be one hell of a target.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DiNet;15449752*
> Dunno about you i got only question: Why do we need airport in sky? 0.o


Your asking the wrong questions...

Why do we NOT need an airport in the sky?


----------



## ggoodd

The thing is, this thing wouldn't NEED to land, if all maintnece can be done in the air, you litterally have a massive moving military city.


----------



## 161029

So, we're looking at a flying nuclear aircraft that will definitely kill us if it has a nuclear meltdown.


----------



## TA4K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8ight;15446894*
> Arkbird much? Damn.


I knew all those hours of playing Ace Combat were gonna pay off sometime soon!


----------



## 0rion

Power it with Thorium... Problem solved. You dont get the massive radiation you do with conventional nuclear material, and by the time you get this monstrosity built, the technology to utilize thorium will be there. It'd be the ideal usage of it.. No emissions, lightweight fuel, and plenty of power output. If 1oz really can generate the equivalent of 7500 gallons of gasoline, you'd need a lot of it sure, but it'd provide a better option than traditional Uranium based fuel IMO.


----------



## d3310n

Guys, this would never NEED to land. it gets supplies delivered to IT.


----------



## hammertime850

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oupavoc;15446807*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> Wouldnt the sheer size and wright makes this almost impossible to build and keep it im the sky?


that's what they said about the wright brothers.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d3310n;15450041*
> Guys, this would never NEED to land. it gets supplies delivered to IT.


And when the thing needs overhauled? It has got to land sometime if only for periodic maintenance.


----------



## INF Snipe

by the time it would be built we would be able to keep it in the air and do maintenance on it without it having to land.


----------



## excoracer

Here's my question. Can I be it's pilot?


----------



## d3310n

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;15450120*
> And when the thing needs overhauled? It has got to land sometime if only for periodic maintenance.


im sure they will do all of that in the air.


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *INF Snipe;15450172*
> by the time it would be built we would be able to keep it in the air and do maintenance on it without it having to land.


Keep on dreaming. I have a bridge to sell you.

You're going to do maintenance and repair of the airframe structure, while it is in the air going a few hundred miles an hour. Are you nuts? An aircraft that big and heavy will be much more prone to metal fatigue than anything we have now. And when members start showing stress cracks, the thing will *have* to land.

Even our fancy carbon composite B2 and F22 are grounded, due to fatigue problems.


----------



## earwig1990

Have you tried the "hot pocket hot pocket? It's a hot pocket filled with a hot pocket, tastes just like a hot pocket" lmao that's what I thought of when I read this


----------



## alick

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Oupavoc*











Source

Wouldnt the sheer size and wright makes this almost impossible to build and keep it im the sky?


 some call nick fury and tell em I found his helijet lol


----------



## n0ypi

age of gundam is upon us! where do I sign up?!?! xD


----------



## guyladouche

Meh, so many assumptions. Lots of things are *possible*. Let's work out the minor details--like getting a power plant to actually work first--and then considering what sort of colossal machines we can stick it in.

Could a plane like that, with that much mass, really generate enough lift at slow enough speeds (to allow planes to land safely on it) to remain buoyant?


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *guyladouche*


Meh, so many assumptions. Lots of things are *possible*. Let's work out the minor details--like getting a power plant to actually work first--and then considering what sort of colossal machines we can stick it in.

Could a plane like that, with that much mass, really generate enough lift at slow enough speeds (to allow planes to land safely on it) to remain buoyant?


It wouldn't have to go that slow, would it? Aircraft only need to land at just above stall speed due to the fact they are travelling far faster than the Earth's rotation, right? If your Super-Plane is going 200mph ground speed) your airliner to land would only need to be travelling marginally faster (to overtake) and would come to a "stop" on the Super-Plane at 200mph ground speed. I think. I could need more coffee.

But yea, powerplant/engines are the elephant in the room.


----------



## Weedvender

You'd have to land this on a salt flat or on a calm ocean/lake. Sounds like a ground effect vehicle to me though.


----------



## hazarada

Yo dawg! I heard u like planes so.. I put a plane on your plane so you can fly while you fly!


----------



## gbatemper

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hazarada*










Yo dawg! I heard u like planes so.. I put a plane on your plane so you can fly while you fly!


PLANECEPTION!

On the other note.
They want to make a goddam aircraft carrier that is a goddam aircraft itself. How would that even be practical? I mean, warships would be able to take a lot of hits before it goes down. But a giant aircraft....it will cause many problems. What if even 1 Plane somehow gets close to it, their goes everything.


----------



## Raiden911

....it doesnt even have to hit near me. the affects will be damaging enough.


----------



## stubass

Howard Hughes is back with "The Spruce Nuke"


----------



## guyladouche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka;15450461*
> It wouldn't have to go that slow, would it? Aircraft only need to land at just above stall speed due to the fact they are travelling far faster than the Earth's rotation, right? If your Super-Plane is going 200mph ground speed) your airliner to land would only need to be travelling marginally faster (to overtake) and would come to a "stop" on the Super-Plane at 200mph ground speed. I think. I could need more coffee.
> 
> But yea, powerplant/engines are the elephant in the room.


Nah, I'm with you--I think you're right, the super-plane doesn't necessarily need to slow down for landings, that's a good point (I only assumed that they would, but there's no need to make those assumptions).

But I don't know that stall speed has anything to do with the earth's rotational speed? Isn't stall speed just the point at which the aerodynamic properties of the vehicle's wings no longer generates enough lift at a given speed to remain buoyant--I don't know where the earth's rotational velocity comes into play though, I think it's only to do with the medium that the vehicle is traveling through (air in this case).


----------



## Thereoncewasamaninparis

Just land it in Kansas on the straightest stretch of I-70.


----------



## ArtistDeAlec

This sounds pretty crazy, in a good way, I'm just scared it will crash on my block and leave it flat like a pancake.


----------



## Domino

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DiNet*


Dunno about you i got only question: Why do we need airport in sky? 0.o

And it looks more like tax payers money getting heavily wasted.


Aircraft carrier with absolutely no boundaries other then the weather.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Domino*


seems like they are going to need propellar propultion in order to keep the puppies in the air. ion propulsion is not going to make these magically stay in the air for montha under our air resistance.


Huh?

Ion propulsion provides very very little force but is efficent, does not need physical fuel, and has a high maximum speed.

Air resistence is a function of atmospheric flight. It is not a factor on stationary objects and would have to be overcome to even take off anyways.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DiNet*


Dunno about you i got only question: Why do we need airport in sky? 0.o

And it looks more like tax payers money getting heavily wasted.


Airplanes burn a lot of fuel on take off and landings.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ggoodd*


The thing is, this thing wouldn't NEED to land, if all maintnece can be done in the air, you litterally have a massive moving military city.


Try doing maintainence on your car while driving 60MPHs.

If you think that is hard.... trying doing maintainence on a 747 at 500MPHs.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


Even our fancy carbon composite B2 and F22 are grounded, due to fatigue problems.


I thought it was due to a pilot oxygen issue?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Domino*


Aircraft carrier with absolutely no boundaries other then the weather.


AAAs and SAMs disagree with that statement.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*


.../snip

AAAs and SAMs disagree with that statement.


Wouldn't this operate over the maximum altitude of those devices, though?


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Nocturin*


Wouldn't this operate over the maximum altitude of those devices, though?


maybe current stuff...if we are building something like that we will probably have AA guns that reach low orbit as well. I am surprised we don't already with all the pesky spy sats that are about.

I am just glad the star wars bit is done...a defeisive satilite that shoots DOWN at the area it is defending? I'll pass on that, thank you.


----------



## assaulth3ro911

Honestly, the complaints about what happens if it crashes? What if a skyscraper falls? I can understand your worries. Skyscrapers have evolved, give this a chance as well, doubt you all would have given a skyscraper a chance if it had been now being developed.


----------



## Sumatra

The empire state building could fly if it was going fast enough. So anything engineered and designed to fly has a pretty good chance. The problem here is getting the power required o\o move this thing and keep it up.


----------



## Psykhotic

So I was seeing some concerns about taking off and landing. This thing would have to move SLOW. If it's fast, sure landing is easier, if you get through the air turbulence. But how would you take off?? It would either need to A) Pull the plane off backwards or B) Have the plane travel at its speed+take off speed. If the giant thing is going 500mph the plane would have to go whatever the speed required for lift up PLUS that 500mph.

My physics is pretty rusty but I think that's how it works. Let's just say it'd be a nightmare.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Psykhotic*


So I was seeing some concerns about taking off and landing. This thing would have to move SLOW. If it's fast, sure landing is easier, if you get through the air turbulence. But how would you take off?? It would either need to A) Pull the plane off backwards or B) Have the plane travel at its speed+take off speed. If the giant thing is going 500mph the plane would have to go whatever the speed required for lift up PLUS that 500mph.

My physics is pretty rusty but I think that's how it works. Let's just say it'd be a nightmare.


There could also be a flap or something that could allow the 500+ MPH window to hit the wings of the aircraft on the fuselage, giving instaneous lift to the take-off aircraft. It might be a little jolt on the way up though.


----------



## xPwn

Quote:



Originally Posted by *linkinparkfan007*


Just have a giant magnet on both planes which attract them to the plane







No runway required. Dunno about take off though










1. Eject
2. Hope
3. Plane recovers at stall


----------



## Skripka

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Psykhotic*


So I was seeing some concerns about taking off and landing. This thing would have to move SLOW. If it's fast, sure landing is easier, if you get through the air turbulence. But how would you take off?? It would either need to A) Pull the plane off backwards or B) Have the plane travel at its speed+take off speed. If the giant thing is going 500mph the plane would have to go whatever the speed required for lift up PLUS that 500mph.

My physics is pretty rusty but I think that's how it works. Let's just say it'd be a nightmare.


I'm fairly certain your physics is rusty in case B.

Tell me, how would a 50mph wind effect an aircraft taking off a conventional runway? Tailwind versus headwind?


----------



## willis888

Quote:



Originally Posted by *assaulth3ro911*


Honestly, the complaints about what happens if it crashes? What if a skyscraper falls? I can understand your worries. Skyscrapers have evolved, give this a chance as well, doubt you all would have given a skyscraper a chance if it had been now being developed.


Skyscrapers don't depend on moving parts to keep them flying at 500mph. This would be bigger than some skyscrapers, and would have to be built to withstand stronger winds

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Psykhotic*


So I was seeing some concerns about taking off and landing. This thing would have to move SLOW. If it's fast, sure landing is easier, if you get through the air turbulence. But how would you take off?? It would either need to A) Pull the plane off backwards or B) Have the plane travel at its speed+take off speed. If the giant thing is going 500mph the plane would have to go whatever the speed required for lift up PLUS that 500mph.

My physics is pretty rusty but I think that's how it works. Let's just say it'd be a nightmare.


I imagine a platform toward the back that could be raised above the level of the forward wind screen. It's already moving faster than airliners need to for take off, so a plane could just start climbing (forward). Add an aircraft carrier's catapult to get it separated from the mothership quickly, lest a small bump of turbulence sends them both smashing back together as soon as it starts to lift off.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *INF Snipe*


by the time it would be built we would be able to keep it in the air and do maintenance on it without it having to land.


I was going to say something about metal fatigue and how would you replace the wings and engines while it was flying, but Skripka beat me to it. \\/\\/\\/

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


An aircraft that big and heavy will be much more prone to metal fatigue than anything we have now.


Yeah.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Raiden911*


....it doesnt even have to hit near me. the *affects* will be damaging enough.


I know right? Whoever pilots or lives on one will totally think they are better than everyone else. I would not be surprised if a tophat, monocle, and twirl-able fake mustache were included with the standard issue uniform.


----------



## xtremenofear

Wasn't there a pile of people winging that we couldn't get to the moon? or space?

The thing that needs to be realised about starting a project like this, is that there are a lot of things that need to be overcome and figured out. This is what 80% of engineers do on a daily basis. If you went back 25 years ago and showed someone a photo of a tablet pc and told them it can be done... they would probably have a heart attack.

If this ever gets built or even designed, there will be a lot indirect improvements in technology due to the design, that will eventually filter into day to day technology. Even further improvements in nuclear technology could eventually result in nuclear powered cars, etc.

The skys the limit..


----------



## srsdude

Sorry couldn't resist










Template at

http://i.imgur.com/Xs6O0.jpg


----------



## NuclearSlurpee

Epic


----------



## Psykhotic

Yea, I was thinking if the big one was traveling at high enough speed the plane could be lifted into the wind. However, what prevents the planes from being blown off at all other times? That cute little windscreen?

I just see all sorts of issues with it now that I'm actually sitting here thinking about it.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Skripka*


I'm fairly certain your physics is rusty in case B.

Tell me, how would a 50mph wind effect an aircraft taking off a conventional runway? Tailwind versus headwind?


One helps, one hurts? What is the max amount of wind you can take off in? I don't have an FAA book handy..


----------



## wermad

Mothership! Wholly molly, that's is a huge aircraft. Glad to see more BWD.


----------



## heraisu

To: All the people asking where it would land etc:
Who said it would ever land?
You would just refuel it every so often...


----------



## raclimja

Lol

Just imagine the noise and turbulance it will create!

Hurricane jumbo jet is incoming

Also, that thing would be like a flying duck in the eyes of terrorist


----------



## Shadowclock

I think it'd be more likely that we finish perfecting the scramjet technology so we can travel to a low orbit mothership.

Escape velocity is ~ mach 20.


----------



## Trigunflame

What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Nocturin

I got it!

Magnets to hold the planes down so there engines can reach RPM, then lower the wind door, and let the plane rise into the air on stilts. Theoretically, the plane will just fly after the magnets let go.

Right?


----------



## srsdude

accelerate planes backwards until their actual speed when they go in mid-air equals their cruise speed.. just behind the big ship


----------



## Newwt

Didn't really read any of the thread, but since it would be nuclear powered, wouldn't that mean it could stay airborne for a good 200+ years? (given the body, components, etc hold up)

People would be taking "plane taxis" just to get to work on that thing


----------



## cokezone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CAHOP240;15447400*
> That's what they said about the Titanic


Titanic was a boat

hence it can't fly.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cokezone;15456640*
> Titanic was a boat
> 
> hence it can't fly.


you know why?

It needed MOAR POWAR!


----------



## calavera

This will never happen. The whole point of this thing is to save fuel, right? I think they're going about it the wrong way. ROFL


----------



## Nocturin

If they develop the reactor to neutralize spent fuel that's in the holes in the ground now, that would make a bunch of people happier.


----------



## SpartanVXL

pulling up physics from my dulled mem, but woulden't the mass of this thing be problematic? from an engineering point of view they'd need to make sure this thing is structurally sound or the momentum of different parts of the craft would tear it apart from it just trying to make a left turn (propulsion turning? or banking, would be  to see that massive thing bank)


----------



## Jzkillzone23

Plane crashes on city = epic fail, ******ed idea. Nuclear radiation on an object that is known to crash.


----------



## Epitope

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nocturin;15451360*
> Wouldn't this operate over the maximum altitude of those devices, though?


If this did operate at altitudes too high for a SAM to reach it would be impossible for most airplanes to take off or land on it singe most planes can't fly that high. I doubt you could get something this big and heavy to fly that high anyways.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo;15451132*
> Huh?
> 
> Ion propulsion provides very very little force but is efficent, does not need physical fuel, and has a high maximum speed.
> 
> Air resistence is a function of atmospheric flight. It is not a factor on stationary objects and would have to be overcome to even take off anyways.


I thought you use a noble gas in order to use ion propulsion. _Conservation of mass_ would state that the noble gas will deplete over time. Nuclear propulsion is typically associated with this type of fuel (or hydrogen).

What I'm saying is that when these things are in the air, you are going to constantly need to burn fuel in order to keep them in flight. We aren't dealing with a vacuum where a small amount of fuel is needed to maintain very high velocities.
Quote:


> AAAs and SAMs disagree with that statement.


Hehe









You know what I meant. You can put these anywhere around the world where there would be no boundaries where you can deploy aircraft. Likewise, you'll be able to get these craft to the destination much faster then an sea based aircraft carrier. Although AA batteries will restrict some air space, you'll still be able to be within reach with your aircraft.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *calavera;15456718*
> This will never happen. The whole point of this thing is to save fuel, right? I think they're going about it the wrong way. ROFL


You can save a lot of fuel if it is done right, hence why I suggested propellers. Create a closed system of a steam engine that drives massive propellers. You use the nuclear power plant to heat the water and then something else to cool it. There, now you have flight that can be sustained for long periods of flight.


----------



## Boinz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MRoFlare;15446991*
> Shield!


Glad im not the only one who thought of this.


----------



## SgtHop

There are so many things to respond to.

One, there is no FAA regulation regarding winds for aircraft operations. You could legally take off in a 100kt wind, although in attempting to do so you would most likely flip the aircraft trying to get to the runway. Everything else wind related is all dictated in the operating books for the individual aircraft, which is required to be followed.

Two, you cannot land an aircraft at 700kt. It would tear the landing gear off and do serious structural damage. Keep in mind that 700kt is greater than the speed of sound. I do believe the high speed gear can be extended is around 200kt on any modern airliner. Also, if you set down and powered back the engines, it would still be generating lift, and therefore most likely slide backwards. If there was something blocking the airflow, as soon as you got behind that, the aircraft would stall, considering you didn't lose control in the huge amounts of turbulence created by it.

And third, two words: Wake Turbulence.


----------



## Awieos

If this thing crash we got another Chernobly...








Built thing thing is a bad idea while shoot it down even more bad idea.


----------



## Killam0n

The united states will have one first im sure, you know if we need to invade another country.. we just flew in one air craft.. well sure there were 20 smaller crafts onboard that bombed your country, but we only get in trouble for crossing air space lines with one aircraft.

That way nato wont come after us you know..

if you cant tell this is just totally just BS, a lot like the idea of a giant flying craft.. unless its a zeppelin.


----------



## Jared2608

This would be cool if the smaller aircraft could dock internally, it would be like a Protos Carrier!!


----------



## asuperpower

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slipstream808;15446876*
> While a TON of questions and concerns come to my mind...
> 
> I can't stop thinking about this thing taking off or landing. And how big would it'd runway have to be??


Hovering FTW.


----------



## asuperpower

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OCcomet;15446964*
> Perhaps they could design it to take off/land vertically?


It's still quite hard. Consider this:
In an aircraft carrier, you can have people next to the runway watching. On this, you can't for obvious reasons.


----------



## BlackandDecker

I think they will have to build it in-flight bit by bit. Cos it'll be too big to take off.


----------



## willis888

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino;15457052*
> What I'm saying is that when these things are in the air, you are going to constantly need to burn fuel in order to keep them in flight. We aren't dealing with a vacuum where a small amount of fuel is needed to maintain very high velocities.


The atmosphere itself is the reaction mass. Propellers work the same way wings do. You don't need rockets pointing down to keep a plane in the air, because the atmosphere does it for you. You just need to make the wings/propellers move through the atmosphere, for example by connecting the propellers to an electric engine that gets charge from an on-board nuclear power plant.


----------



## INF Snipe

i love how no1 can think outside of the box on this one. lol


----------



## BirdofPrey

Why is everyone talking about generating electricity with the reactor and then running propellers off an electric motor? There is such a the hung as a nuclear jet engine; air gets pulled in and compressed at the front and is pushed past the fuel (or, more likely, the coolant lines) , superheating the air, causing it to expand and produce thrust. The design of the jet engine isn't that complicated since it just replaces the fire with another heat source.

The challenge is the reactor. It has to be light enough to have a foot power to weight ratio, which is difficult given the shielding requirements. The other hurdle is a PR issue: the word 'nuclear' makes most people squeamish. It's a lot safer than people believe since reactors not melting down isn't sensational enough for the media.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *asuperpower;15457641*
> It's still quite hard. Consider this:
> In an aircraft carrier, you can have people next to the runway watching. On this, you can't for obvious reasons.


No one really NEEDS to watch...I think it is just Navy policy. The jet's and the ship's computers will let every one know if everything is alright. Plus that guy waving his hand for a catapult to lauch a jet looks cool for recruitment videos. I wasn't a Navy guy though...just spent a lot of time on a aircreaft carrier and seen a few planes launch and talked with ship crew and pilots.

Though people on the plane could work fine too...just would need an oxygen mask and a good wind breaker coat. Might even be less dangerous than a boat since a life jacket will not always stop a person from drowning, but a paracute will ussually open. Plus, I think some one would be more likely to freeze in the water than up in the air unless they were out side at 30,000 feet without proper gear.


----------



## justinjja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OCcomet;15446964*
> Perhaps they could design it to take off/land vertically?


Ya they could just strap a nuclear bomb to the bottom of it.
Should be enough force for a vertical take off...


----------



## 8ight

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey*


Why is everyone talking about generating electricity with the reactor and then running propellers off an electric motor? There is such a the hung as a nuclear jet engine; air gets pulled in and compressed at the front and is pushed past the fuel (or, more likely, the coolant lines) , superheating the air, causing it to expand and produce thrust. The design of the jet engine isn't that complicated since it just replaces the fire with another heat source.

The challenge is the reactor. It has to be light enough to have a foot power to weight ratio, which is difficult given the shielding requirements. The other hurdle is a PR issue: the word 'nuclear' makes most people squeamish. It's a lot safer than people believe since reactors not melting down isn't sensational enough for the media.


Well of course, but that's obvious and ordinary (in this case), we all like to think out of the box. Don't forget you would still need an electric fan of some sort to generate the pressure to start the engine at takeoff. Said fan could also continue its operation in flight to aid in the generation of thrust and increase efficiency. In some ways it would act much like a modern turbofan jet engine, blameless and I discussed this..

Quote:



Originally Posted by *justinjja*


Ya they could just strap a nuclear bomb to the bottom of it.
Should be enough force for a vertical take off...










It's really funny when you consider it deeply since it's not impossible, that is, if the energy was directed correctly and somehow made into useful thrust.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vagrant Storm*


Though people on the plane could work fine too...just would need an oxygen mask and a good wind breaker coat. Might even be less dangerous than a boat since a life jacket will not always stop a person from drowning, but a paracute will ussually open. Plus, I think some one would be more likely to freeze in the water than up in the air unless they were out side at 30,000 feet without proper gear.


I think it would be far more practical to have a protected point of observation like the control tower at a modern airport. All you need is the three Rs, Runway, Radar, and Radio contact to make it work without a hitch every time. Ask any air traffic controller, my father was one.


----------



## r3skyline

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Haze_hellivo*


I would like to see the airport for it to land,this doesnt seem like a good idea think of the consequences if it crashes.


basically anywhere in the southwest. LOLOL


----------



## tha d0ctor

This idea will never get past the cover of Popular Science.


----------



## Mongol

I'd like to see the perfection of the SCRAMjet engine..before I'd even consider the thought of a nuclear drive. (and the doing away with lead shielding)


----------



## fluffy wabbit

avatar anyone?


----------



## Aparition

So many silly theories









If this were to ever happen it would most likely be setup in the upper atmosphere to act as a take-off point for low orbit space craft.

With enough wing span it would be able to partially glide indefinitely based on air currents and the curve of the earth. I highly doubt it would operate at passenger air-line altitudes.

First step towards commercial Space Flight!


----------



## INF Snipe

^ thinking smart. in the pic it shows it in the upper atmosphere so it is more like to be for space flights.


----------



## slipstream808

It's a calculated risk simply because this would be the biggest target for terrorists ever. The destruction it would cause on crashing would be phenomenal. Bombs, missiles, planes flying into it, etc. Actually if someone crashed into it on accident how would that turn out? This thing has to support itself in the air. I could go on for a while here but you get the idea.

I don't think this idea will ever take off. (laaaaaaame joke)


----------



## 45nm

NB-36H. That was the historical precedent.


----------



## Shadowclock

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Aparition*


So many silly theories









If this were to ever happen it would most likely be setup in the upper atmosphere to act as a take-off point for low orbit space craft.

With enough wing span it would be able to partially glide indefinitely based on air currents and the curve of the earth. I highly doubt it would operate at passenger air-line altitudes.

First step towards commercial Space Flight!


For this purpose they could perfect the space elevator idea.


----------



## srsdude

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Awieos*


If this thing crash we got another Chernobly...








Built thing thing is a bad idea while shoot it down even more bad idea.










Imagine a flying Chernobyl
Now imagine a computer virus that crashes it in some country's capital
What a world we live in!


----------



## TheSprunk

I'm more interested in it's purpose. What is it good for? It seems to me like this is meant to STAY in the air, in which case, why? A refueling platform? Where currently "large" planes do fuel relays/drop offs and smaller planes dock to refuel?

Honestly I think this thing would be pretty safe assuming they get the power source up to par with current nuclear operating and safety standards. The danger factor is the idea of planes landing/taking off from it (And the crashes that inevitably result), or this itself landing and taking off. But if this is meant to stay aflight, and has a multi-year flight-span, I think this could be pretty safe. Lot of if's though.


----------



## raiderxx

Anyone else see a Roland Emmerich movie in the making?


----------



## jetplane48

It could always just take off vertically


----------



## GREG MISO

it would be possible for it to take off and land at my local airstation here in yuma,az we have the longest runway in north america. mostly what concerns me is that it would basically be a steam aircraft as that is how nuclear subs work by using the heat of nuclear to boil water and i have never heard of a steam aircraft or any type of plane.


----------



## EduFurtado

What pops to mind when I read these questions is it should be a sea plane, built as a ship. Land and take off from sea water.


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

1: To the landing and taking off question: Desert to take off. And it's nuclear(/Thorium) powered, it doesn't need to land.








2: To the size, look at an aircraft carrier. There's the length. And the wingspan is 2 - 3 times longer.


----------



## deadbydraino

Being an Aviation major, it really pains me to see the closet physicists in this thread that have no idea what they are talking about.

Besides the obvious construction and power issues, the things I see needing to be overcome:

1. Wake turbulence: Major issue, they need to most likely direct a portion of the thrust downward to make it even possible to land on without flipping. Airfoil turbulence should not be too much of an issue, since it should be straight and level while landing on it.

2. Take off: If you try and take off the opposite direction on this thing, you immediately stall unless you can get a ground speed greater than the airspeed of the craft, even then you would need to greatly exceed that. One solution would be to attach a tow rope and drag the plane behind the craft for a short while, then release. Seems like the most practical method. Again the issue of wake turbulence applies.

3. Altitude: If anything above 12k feet, all of the aircraft would need to be parked in a pressurized hanger before anyone could get out due to lack of oxygen. No commercial craft is built to maintain pressurization while attached to any sort of docking station. This can obviously be fixed fairly easily by modifying current aircraft, but still an issue no less. Also its 2 degrees Celsius colder per 1000 ft you go up (standard), so obvious air temperature issues arise if you are aiming for much higher altitudes.

Couple other things to address:

Your landing gear would NOT rip off landing on this. Lets say the craft is moving at 200kt, and you are moving at 230kt coming in for a landing. You are landing at 30kt. Simple as that. Everything is relative here guys.

That windscreen shielding the aircraft landing is more than enough to completely negate relative wind on the runway. Looking at that design, once you've passed the first quarter of the runway, the relative wind will be completely gone since it is being directed OVER the runway. Look up how air flows over an airfoil and it becomes clear very quickly. Crosswinds, wind shear, and micro-bursts will be as they are landing at any other runway.

Lots of other things to address but I won't get into it. Physically possible. In a perfect world, practical. In our world, a huge target. I don't see it ever making production, as much as I would LOVE to land on one.

And guys, its 2011. Get off that nuclear fear that people have been riding for so many years. An extremely viable technology is hampered by people like you.


----------



## CyberDruid

So all it takes to drag a post out of you is an aircraft large enough to land other aircraft on.


----------



## deadbydraino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CyberDruid;15466777*
> So all it takes to drag a post out of you is an aircraft large enough to land other aircraft on.


Haha yep it hit a nerve for me reading these posts. My sig says it all man, I love me some forum lurking


----------



## squishysquishy

cold fusion...hmm dare i say Ion powered engines? built in space, built for constant flight. some ion motors just enough it keep it airborne in strong front wind. naturally a couple of extra ones just in case one or two failed.

If we have the technology to build it, we ought to have those pretty well mastered.

Since we are talking about future endeavors.

but, talking about huge terrorist target. it will have to have point defense lasers.

And, naturally I though of laputa castle in the sky when i saw this.


----------



## deadbydraino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Crackheadkid;15466914*
> cold fusion...hmm dare i say Ion powered engines? built in space, built for constant flight. some ion motors just enough it keep it airborne in strong front wind. naturally a couple of extra ones just in case one or two failed.
> 
> If we have the technology to build it, we ought to have those pretty well mastered.
> 
> Since we are talking about future endeavors.
> 
> but, talking about huge terrorist target. it will have to have point defense lasers.
> 
> And, naturally I though of laputa castle in the sky when i saw this.


Unfortunately, Ion propulsion systems would never produce enough power to maintain flight. The thrust from Ion engines are intended for spaceflight in a near frictionless environment. Overcoming wind resistance, atmospheric resistance etc would be impossible for those, at least in it's current application.

I do like the idea of the electrically powered low-bypass turbojet. Seems like it would be viable. A lot more work needs to be done on that subject though, since the only real application of electrically powered aircraft are all prop engines.


----------



## NKrader

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slipstream808;15446876*
> While a TON of questions and concerns come to my mind...
> 
> I can't stop thinking about this thing taking off or landing. And how big would it'd runway have to be??


the new spaceport big enough?


----------



## SgtBigRig

would be impossible to get something like that off the ground. You see how much fuel it takes just to get a rocket into orbit? yea thats a relatively short(but intense) journey compared to sustained flight.Switching it all out for Nuclear powered isnt gonna fix it overnight. Also the larger the control surfaces the more that can go wrong, and my god you dont want to be under that thing when it all goes wrong.


----------



## SpartanVXL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpartanVXL;15456966*
> pulling up physics from my dulled mem, but woulden't the mass of this thing be problematic? from an engineering point of view they'd need to make sure this thing is structurally sound or the momentum of different parts of the craft would tear it apart from it just trying to make a left turn (propulsion turning? or banking, would be  to see that massive thing bank)


Since theres someone who knows his stuff here could they answer this? would be interesting


----------



## StormX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oupavoc;15446882*
> lol i never taught about that...the sheer size of it, it will take out many city blocks!!!


probobly half a state

yyyyAwr a Popup from ocn interrupted my life just now and i Rawr3d at it


----------



## deadbydraino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpartanVXL;15467338*
> Since theres someone who knows his stuff here could they answer this? would be interesting


Very simply put, yes if you tried to bank this craft too much it would tear apart in an instant. It's called the maneuvering speed, each aircraft has a different number based on its construction and weight.

Seeing as this thing would weigh quite a bit, its maneuvering speed would be extremely low, meaning any sort of banking would have to be very slight and over a long distance to achieve.

Hope that answers your question


----------



## SgtHop

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deadbydraino;15466677*
> Being an Aviation major, it really pains me to see the closet physicists in this thread that have no idea what they are talking about.
> 
> Besides the obvious construction and power issues, the things I see needing to be overcome:
> 
> 1. Wake turbulence: Major issue, they need to most likely direct a portion of the thrust downward to make it even possible to land on without flipping. Airfoil turbulence should not be too much of an issue, since it should be straight and level while landing on it.
> 
> 2. Take off: If you try and take off the opposite direction on this thing, you immediately stall unless you can get a ground speed greater than the airspeed of the craft, even then you would need to greatly exceed that. One solution would be to attach a tow rope and drag the plane behind the craft for a short while, then release. Seems like the most practical method. Again the issue of wake turbulence applies.
> 
> 3. Altitude: If anything above 12k feet, all of the aircraft would need to be parked in a pressurized hanger before anyone could get out due to lack of oxygen. No commercial craft is built to maintain pressurization while attached to any sort of docking station. This can obviously be fixed fairly easily by modifying current aircraft, but still an issue no less. Also its 2 degrees Celsius colder per 1000 ft you go up (standard), so obvious air temperature issues arise if you are aiming for much higher altitudes.
> 
> Couple other things to address:
> 
> Your landing gear would NOT rip off landing on this. Lets say the craft is moving at 200kt, and you are moving at 230kt coming in for a landing. You are landing at 30kt. Simple as that. Everything is relative here guys.
> 
> That windscreen shielding the aircraft landing is more than enough to completely negate relative wind on the runway. Looking at that design, once you've passed the first quarter of the runway, the relative wind will be completely gone since it is being directed OVER the runway. Look up how air flows over an airfoil and it becomes clear very quickly. Crosswinds, wind shear, and micro-bursts will be as they are landing at any other runway.
> 
> Lots of other things to address but I won't get into it. Physically possible. In a perfect world, practical. In our world, a huge target. I don't see it ever making production, as much as I would LOVE to land on one.
> 
> And guys, its 2011. Get off that nuclear fear that people have been riding for so many years. An extremely viable technology is hampered by people like you.


I was referring to airflow, not rotation speed. Just sayin. There's a reason you can't drop the gear past a certain point.


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deadbydraino;15466677*
> Being an Aviation major, it really pains me to see the closet physicists in this thread that have no idea what they are talking about.
> 
> Besides the obvious construction and power issues, the things I see needing to be overcome:
> 
> 1. Wake turbulence: Major issue, they need to most likely direct a portion of the thrust downward to make it even possible to land on without flipping. Airfoil turbulence should not be too much of an issue, since it should be straight and level while landing on it.
> 
> 2. Take off: If you try and take off the opposite direction on this thing, you immediately stall unless you can get a ground speed greater than the airspeed of the craft, even then you would need to greatly exceed that. One solution would be to attach a tow rope and drag the plane behind the craft for a short while, then release. Seems like the most practical method. Again the issue of wake turbulence applies.
> 
> 3. Altitude: If anything above 12k feet, all of the aircraft would need to be parked in a pressurized hanger before anyone could get out due to lack of oxygen. No commercial craft is built to maintain pressurization while attached to any sort of docking station. This can obviously be fixed fairly easily by modifying current aircraft, but still an issue no less. Also its 2 degrees Celsius colder per 1000 ft you go up (standard), so obvious air temperature issues arise if you are aiming for much higher altitudes.
> 
> Couple other things to address:
> 
> Your landing gear would NOT rip off landing on this. Lets say the craft is moving at 200kt, and you are moving at 230kt coming in for a landing. You are landing at 30kt. Simple as that. Everything is relative here guys.
> 
> That windscreen shielding the aircraft landing is more than enough to completely negate relative wind on the runway. Looking at that design, once you've passed the first quarter of the runway, the relative wind will be completely gone since it is being directed OVER the runway. Look up how air flows over an airfoil and it becomes clear very quickly. Crosswinds, wind shear, and micro-bursts will be as they are landing at any other runway.
> 
> *Lots of other things to address but I won't get into it. Physically possible. In a perfect world, practical. In our world, a huge target. I don't see it ever making production, as much as I would LOVE to land on one.
> 
> And guys, its 2011. Get off that nuclear fear that people have been riding for so many years. An extremely viable technology is hampered by people like you.*


Here here!

Very well said, the whole thing.


----------



## deadbydraino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SgtHop;15467502*
> I was referring to airflow, not rotation speed. Just sayin. There's a reason you can't drop the gear past a certain point.


Ah my fault if that's the case. Re-reading my post I realize I come off as a bit hostile. I do agree with you though that landing a plane at 700kt is a recipe for disaster.

My guess would be that this would be designed to be as slow flying as possible, somewhere in the range of 200kt. Comes fairly close to a 747's rotation speed, so the stress on the landing gear should be minimal. As for designing a craft that large that can maintain altitude at 200kt that is a whole different story. The delta wing design should help with that though.


----------



## SgtHop

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deadbydraino;15467574*
> Ah my fault if that's the case. Re-reading my post I realize I come off as a bit hostile. I do agree with you though that landing a plane at 700kt is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> My guess would be that this would be designed to be as slow flying as possible, somewhere in the range of 200kt. Comes fairly close to a 747's rotation speed, so the stress on the landing gear should be minimal. As for designing a craft that large that can maintain altitude at 200kt that is a whole different story. The delta wing design should help with that though.


Actually, looking at the picture again, wake turbulence might not be that big of an issue. The wings on it are so wide, that if you came in well above the thing, chances are you would never hit it.

Another issue I see looking over it is the incredibly small vertical surface area. I can see this being unstable as hell unless you doubled or maybe even tripled the stabilizer area.


----------



## deadbydraino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SgtHop;15467655*
> Actually, looking at the picture again, wake turbulence might not be that big of an issue. The wings on it are so wide, that if you came in well above the thing, chances are you would never hit it.
> 
> Another issue I see looking over it is the incredibly small vertical surface area. I can see this being unstable as hell unless you doubled or maybe even tripled the stabilizer area.


That's actually a good point. If approached as if you were doing a short-field landing, you may never hit it. Possibly only the wash from the wind screen, but that shouldn't be a huge issue in theory. Basically just a very exaggerated version of ground effect since you wouldn't hit it until close to the runway surface.

I assumed this would have computerized rudder stabilizers on the wings similar to the b-2 bomber that adjust based on wind conditions. If not then yeah the vertical stabilizers would have to be MUCH bigger.

Edited for clarity.


----------



## SgtHop

I think that windscreen would be more troublesome, because you're going to get into some pretty unclean air, which would make for an incredibly bumpy ride, if not one that could upset the landing aircraft.

And, if it did have this computerized thingy that kept it stable without the rudders, why have the vertical bits out there in the first place? Looks like something good to run into.


----------



## deadbydraino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SgtHop;15467806*
> I think that windscreen would be more troublesome, because you're going to get into some pretty unclean air, which would make for an incredibly bumpy ride, if not one that could upset the landing aircraft.
> 
> And, if it did have this computerized thingy that kept it stable without the rudders, why have the vertical bits out there in the first place? Looks like something good to run into.


Big thing with the elevons and rudders on a b-2 is it is based off of a system that does not have a direct override. The video posted of the b-2 crashing was because one of the sensors controlling the computer for rudder adjustment freaked out and reported incorrectly, causing the plane to rotate far too soon then bank left.

The only reason the b-2 does not have vertical stabilizers is for the purpose of a small radar signature. Pretty safe to say you can't hide this huge thing, so having vertical stabilizers would help keep the plane stable, and in the event that the computer fails with the rudders/elevons, the vertical stabilizers would function as an override.

All of this is conjecture though, that's how I'd do it if I were building it.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willis888;15458745*
> The atmosphere itself is the reaction mass. Propellers work the same way wings do. You don't need rockets pointing down to keep a plane in the air, because the atmosphere does it for you. You just need to make the wings/propellers move through the atmosphere, for example by connecting the propellers to an electric engine that gets charge from an on-board nuclear power plant.


....for the second time. Air resistance means you'll burn more fuel as opposed to in a vacuum. These won't stay in the air very long unless you use a different propulsion system or a different fuel all together.

The limiting factor to flight, by my understanding, is the amount of fuel, not the amount of energy you use to burn the fuel.


----------



## SgtHop

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deadbydraino;15468064*
> Big thing with the elevons and rudders on a b-2 is it is based off of a system that does not have a direct override. The video posted of the b-2 crashing was because one of the sensors controlling the computer for rudder adjustment freaked out and reported incorrectly, causing the plane to rotate far too soon then bank left.
> 
> The only reason the b-2 does not have vertical stabilizers is for the purpose of a small radar signature. Pretty safe to say you can't hide this huge thing, so having vertical stabilizers would help keep the plane stable, and in the event that the computer fails with the rudders/elevons, the vertical stabilizers would function as an override.
> 
> All of this is conjecture though, that's how I'd do it if I were building it.


I can't see those providing enough countering force to overcome...well, anything. It would be way too heavy for that small of a control area, especially if it is in the unclean air coming off the shield. I guess one could argue though, that even if it is unstable, it would take a huge amount of force to cause it to lose control.


----------



## B3anbag

maybe for S&G's sake, it could take off of an aircraft carrier? If Alec Baldwin can pilot a B17 off one, then...or it could replace a/c's completely, even carry boats?

On a more serious note, by the time they have the ability and tech to fully build LENR, wouldnt it be a safe assumption to say they've also come up with new materials, uber strong & lightweight? Something that makes carbon fiber look like playdoh. clear aluminum, for example. just a thought.


----------



## deadbydraino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SgtHop;15468175*
> I can't see those providing enough countering force to overcome...well, anything. It would be way too heavy for that small of a control area, especially if it is in the unclean air coming off the shield. I guess one could argue though, that even if it is unstable, it would take a huge amount of force to cause it to lose control.


Correct. Assuming the crew knew what they were doing and someone was watching the attitude indicator the problem would be caught before any major loss of control happened. Lots of fail-safes are built into modern aircraft as it is, let alone something this far down the line. I do still agree with you though, those vertical stabilizers are definitely too small to function on their own for any extended time.

That windscreen breaking the boundary layer would definitely cause turbulent air behind it whenever maneuvering. In straight and level flight it should not if constructed properly. Making it lower to the structure of the plane would help, or making it extend further toward the back of the plane to maintain the boundary layer.


----------



## SgtHop

Failsafes are nice until the failsafe fails and causes it to plow into the ground, a la B-2. That's the problem with these incredibly unstable, flown by computer aircraft. If the computer goes wrong, there's nothing you can do about it. At that point, you're just along for the ride. It's one thing for a fighter jet to act like that, it needs to be maneuverable, but something like this, I would expect it to be the most stable thing since the Golden Gate.


----------



## deadbydraino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SgtHop;15468419*
> Failsafes are nice until the failsafe fails and causes it to plow into the ground, a la B-2. That's the problem with these incredibly unstable, flown by computer aircraft. If the computer goes wrong, there's nothing you can do about it. At that point, you're just along for the ride. It's one thing for a fighter jet to act like that, it needs to be maneuverable, but something like this, I would expect it to be the most stable thing since the Golden Gate.


Completely agree with you on that one. If it can't be manually flown, especially something this large and expensive, it should never leave the ground.

The B-2 was a large investment in the faith of their instruments, and they learned the hard way that a pilot not being able to do his job can be fatal. I've personally experienced more than once one of my instruments being incorrect.

Personally I think it is only a matter of time before a simple AI is developed to handle that sort of problem though. A fairly simple set of troubleshooting is done to see which of your instruments is reading wrong, I wouldn't imagine it would take too much computational power to simulate this ability. The only major point of contention here is takeoff and landing, where you have fractions of a second to make adjustments.


----------



## hak8or

That is going to be one looooooooong runway to get that thing up in the air.


----------



## tsm106

It's a giant omni wing!


----------



## captain_clayman

hmmmmm maybe it would take off/land in the ocean? where the hell are they gonna get a runway big enough for that thing?


----------



## Xzeara

I think a vertical thrust system would be needed for these things personally.


----------



## srsdude

they will never take this thing off the ground. Unless they assemble it in pieces in mid-air...


----------



## asuperpower

What about landing a plane? How do you expect to land a plane on that and keep it stable? It's hard enough on an aircraft carrier. It's only going to get harder on that considering how fast it is travelling. Can an expert *cough*deadbydraino*cough* clarify this?


----------



## SgtHop

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *asuperpower;15470448*
> What about landing a plane? How do you expect to land a plane on that and keep it stable? It's hard enough on an aircraft carrier. It's only going to get harder on that considering how fast it is travelling. Can an expert *cough*deadbydraino*cough* clarify this?


The faster an aircraft is moving, the more stable it is. As air moves over the surfaces of the wings and tail, they have more force with which to act. The only thing that would be inherently difficult in landing an aircraft on something like this is getting the glideslope right, which they have ways around such as the indicators on the F/A-18s and the like. Not impossible by any stretch in that sense.


----------



## SS_Patrick

Not sure if anyone said this yet but landing in mid air. Ok I see this being semi-possible.

How the hell are you going to exit said plane though?


----------



## Trigunflame

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SS_Patrick;15470681*
> Not sure if anyone said this yet but landing in mid air. Ok I see this being semi-possible.
> 
> How the hell are you going to exit said plane though?


Do you not see the huge transparent windscreen? It's no different than one you would find on a crotch rocket aside from scale; in that it would direct airflow over and around the various objects and people below it.


----------



## deadbydraino

Quote:



Originally Posted by *asuperpower*


What about landing a plane? How do you expect to land a plane on that and keep it stable? It's hard enough on an aircraft carrier. It's only going to get harder on that considering how fast it is travelling. Can an expert *cough*deadbydraino*cough* clarify this?


What Sgthop said







. The only other issue I see is passing through the faster moving air flowing over the top of the windscreen. That would happen just before you enter ground effect (phenomena where when you are 2 times the distance of your wingspan from the ground, your lift increases).

Problem with that is if you are coming in on a glide slope, you will hit that portion just before the runway where you will have a very notable increase in lift and/or turbulence. Any drastic change to flight characteristics are potentially dangerous, but I'm not certain how much greater the airspeed would be in that effect.

As for getting this thing off the ground, IMO very doable via takeoff from calm seas. Also only really needs to be done once every couple of months, assuming it stays in the air besides maintenance and repairs.


----------



## asuperpower

Quote:



Originally Posted by *deadbydraino*


What Sgthop said







. The only other issue I see is passing through the faster moving air flowing over the top of the windscreen. That would happen just before you enter ground effect (phenomena where when you are 2 times the distance of your wingspan from the ground, your lift increases).

Problem with that is if you are coming in on a glide slope, you will hit that portion just before the runway where you will have a very notable increase in lift and/or turbulence. Any drastic change to flight characteristics are potentially dangerous, but I'm not certain how much greater the airspeed would be in that effect.


Thank you. I wondered whether that would happen.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *deadbydraino*


As for getting this thing off the ground, IMO very doable via takeoff from calm seas. Also only really needs to be done once every couple of months, assuming it stays in the air besides maintenance and repairs.


*repairs wing**falls out of sky.*
















Quote:



The main problem is that so far no LENR device has been demonstrated that can be turned on and off at will.


*Falls out of sky* Captain: "Not again!"

*EDIT:* I assume you fly X-Plane. This would be an awesome aircraft to both fly and land other planes on it. I hope someone makes an X-Plane version.


----------



## BirdofPrey

Quote:



Originally Posted by *srsdude*


Imagine a flying Chernobyl
Now imagine a computer virus that crashes it in some country's capital
What a world we live in!


This is exactly what I mean when I say the word 'nuclear' makes people squeamish.

First of all the reason for the disaster at chernobyl was because it lacked rigorous safeties and a decent reactor containment vessel and were running physics experiments in the reactor that exploded.

Modern reactors have failsafes built into the fuel components, and you can bet a reactor built with as low standards as chernobyl would never be allowed off the ground.

If such a plane were to crash, the rest of the plane smashing into a city would make anything that happens to the reactor seem minor.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Domino*


....for the second time. Air resistance means you'll burn more fuel as opposed to in a vacuum. These won't stay in the air very long unless you use a different propulsion system or a different fuel all together.

The limiting factor to flight, by my understanding, is the amount of fuel, not the amount of energy you use to burn the fuel.


Fuel is a misnomer in this case. The fuel is what powers the nuclear reactor to generate the heat. The air is propellant which is acted upon by the engine to generate thrust. Air resistance shouldn't be a problem. Nuclear rockets and jets are fairly high thrust engines.

After noticing the windscreen, there is something I wonder? What the hell happens if a plane needs to wave off? There's a reason aircraft carriers have the end of the landing deck clear.


----------



## 8ight

Quote:



Originally Posted by *deadbydraino*


Unfortunately, Ion propulsion systems would never produce enough power to maintain flight. The thrust from Ion engines are intended for spaceflight in a near frictionless environment. Overcoming wind resistance, atmospheric resistance etc would be impossible for those, at least in it's current application.

*I do like the idea of the electrically powered low-bypass turbojet.* Seems like it would be viable. A lot more work needs to be done on that subject though, since the only real application of electrically powered aircraft are all prop engines.


You're welcome


----------



## dioxholster

what happened to big giant zeppelins? The military could use them for asymetric warfares against the likes of taliban or gaddafi.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dioxholster*


what happened to big giant zeppelins? The military could use them for asymetric warfares against the likes of taliban or gaddafi.


They have the top speed of like 20 MPH and Gaddafi is dead


----------



## Aparition

Also remember the actual size of the Reactor would be quite small. Most likely they would take designs from Submarines as their reactors are small yet provide more than adequate power for years of operation, about the size of a medium sized bathroom.

Also nuclear reactors don't use weapons grade materials, there is no bomb effect in the case of a meltdown. Chernobyl had a fire in the reactor which put nuclear isotopes into the air, there wasn't a nuke like explosion.


----------



## Win == True

This makes no sense, the last time the US tried a nuclear powered plane they found it was to heavy and didn't have enough power... So why would they use a low energy reactor? The Russians only got it to work by not shielding the reactor and running air through the reactors and contaminating the crew!


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Win == True*


This makes no sense, the last time the US tried a nuclear powered plane they found it was to heavy and didn't have enough power... So why would they use a low energy reactor? The Russians only got it to work by not shielding the reactor and running air through the reactors and contaminating the crew!


That was ages ago in the tech world.

We now have reactors that care the size of basketballs and hermetically sealed to prevent any contamination that can power a few homes for years.










Technology improves over time, you know?


----------



## hydropwnics

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Reslivo*


But what's the point?


e-peen

"my plane is powered my nuclear reaktors and you can land other planes on it. What does your plane do? Oh, thats right, you dont own a plane"


----------



## civilian_pr0ject




----------



## 222Panther222

Convair NB-36H

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6


----------



## Nocturin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *222Panther222*


Convair NB-36H

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6


that's awesome!


----------



## KClaisse

This reminds me a lot of Project Pluto. It could supposedly stay in the air just cruising for months at a time until it was given further orders. It uses an engine called a nuclear ramjet, the best description of which I have found on wikipedia:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wikipedia*
> The principle behind the nuclear ramjet was relatively simple: motion of the vehicle pushed air in through the front of the vehicle (ram effect), a nuclear reactor heated the air, and then the hot air expanded at high speed out through a nozzle at the back, providing thrust.


----------



## Polymerabbit

Meh, I'm waiting for an orbital elevator.


----------



## Hephasteus

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hydropwnics*


e-peen

"my plane is powered my nuclear reaktors and you can land other planes on it. What does your plane do? Oh, thats right, you dont own a plane"


Actually it's more important than that. People are stuck on the search for energy because we are in a disintigrating social complexity model. Oil made this complexity model possible. Without a new source it will disintigrate. Which is why there's all the green energy, nuclear energy, this energy that energy kinds of junk going on. The computer and www revolution 
was simply a subconcious reaching out to find our most complex structure before we collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

Quote:



Originally Posted by *captain_clayman*


hmmmmm maybe it would take off/land in the ocean? where the hell are they gonna get a runway big enough for that thing?



Quote:



Originally Posted by *Hephasteus*


Actually it's more important than that. People are stuck on the search for energy because we are in a disintigrating social complexity model. Oil made this complexity model possible. Without a new source it will disintigrate. Which is why there's all the green energy, nuclear energy, this energy that energy kinds of junk going on. The computer and www revolution 
was simply a subconcious reaching out to find our most complex structure before we collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter


Dude, even if we didn't go green, we would have oil for centuries to come.


----------



## Nocturin

If we don't destroy our planet before that time.


----------



## gerickjohn

Would make a great floating evac point, even for the end of the world, as for how it should take off, Nuclear power could possibly help it do a Vertical Take off.


----------



## fullomega

Sounds like the grand-daddy of all aircraft carriers in the sky


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BirdofPrey;15472225*
> Fuel is a misnomer in this case. The fuel is what powers the nuclear reactor to generate the heat. The air is propellant which is acted upon by the engine to generate thrust. Air resistance shouldn't be a problem. Nuclear rockets and jets are fairly high thrust engines.


I don't think you know how nuclear engines actually work, nor how much hydrogen/other fuels are burned in the process during flight. Nor how little oxygen is present in the upper reaches of our atmosphere. Likewise, these engines don't produce any static thrust. So unless these puppies are maintaining mach speeds, which would be impracticable for an airport, you are looking at a crap load of fuel to put these monsters into the air while still maintaining enough fuel to overcome the constant drain caused by resistance.

You don't just neglect friction, especially while these puppies get faster. Seriously?

Cheers.


----------



## Clivey

I must say I have a few issues with this idea (at least in a non-military application).

The first is the effort of all of this extra development, engineering, production, maintenance etc. etc. for the sake of saving fuel in the smaller parasite craft (of which how many will actually "dock" with this vehicle)? Like public transport, it only makes sense on the most populated routes - otherwise, smaller aircraft will have to detour to use it - it will be the aeronatical equivalent of a passenger car ferry.

In addition, if the craft is going to travel more slowly than the parasite aircraft would ordinarily, it will make journey times a real ballache for passengers. - In this sense it seems that recently we've been making backwards steps. First, we lose Concordé and with it supersonic passenger aircraft, then, should this come into play, we'll be travelling slower than we are now on 40+ year old aircraft.

Progress? Surely it would make more sense to continue to develop faster & more efficient non-parastic aircraft (compact nuclear reactors couls be an option in the future)?

The only way this would make sense is if it were some sort of stepping stone to spaceflight...

...however, I'm not doubting that an airbourne airport would be an epic thing to see.


----------



## willis888

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino;15486212*
> I don't think you know how nuclear engines actually work, nor how much hydrogen/other fuels are burned in the process during flight.


We're not talking about rockets. Hydrogen is not oxidized to generate heat and pressure in an electric motor. The primary mover is powered by transmutation of elements - E=mc^2 produces orders of magnitude more energy per unit of "fuel" (thorium, uranium, etc.) than oxidation of kerosene.

For the stated purpose of serving as a landing strip for commercial airliners, this behemoth would need to operate below the maximum altitude of those airliners, not in the thin upper atmosphere, and at those altitudes you don't need rockets. Propellers are adequate and you just need some way to make them spin. If waste heat from the reactor can be used to increase pressure of gasses exiting the engines, that's just a bonus - oxidation reactions of carried fuel are still not needed to make that happen.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *willis888;15488417*
> We're not talking about rockets. Hydrogen is not oxidized to generate heat and pressure in an electric motor. The primary mover is powered by transmutation of elements - E=mc^2 produces orders of magnitude more energy per unit of "fuel" (thorium, uranium, etc.) than oxidation of kerosene.


where are you pulling your propulsion? this energy is mostly converted into heat. it helps in the expansion of gases, but you still require some sort of fuel.

air doesnt get you off the ground and a intake and compressor to give enough air that would be sensible for take off is not going to get an airfield off tue ground is unpractical
air resistance is going to increase as you go faster resulting in more fuel being burnt to overcome the friction.

you either give these propellors or they arent staying in the air for a very long time. hate to tsee this go to waste


----------



## Nocturin

? wait what, i just read the past two replies and I think you guys are debating on the same team...?


----------



## willis888

I'm imagining an electrically powered, high torque fan with valved pressure chambers behind it, a reactor-fed heat exchange in the chambers and a nozzle behind them.

Or maybe just the fan, and forget about trying to do extra work with reactor heat.


----------



## bucdan

Yep, USAF would want this now.


----------



## Domino

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Nocturin*


? wait what, i just read the past two replies and I think you guys are debating on the same team...?


He edited in after me 20 minutes of editing my grammatical errors from the phone.


----------



## Joephis19

I think a major concern should be how easy this bugger would be to shoot down.....


----------



## Tippy

If it hasn't been mentioned in the last 25 pages, what about the massive physical forces that wind/turbulence will have on something this big? 
Engineering something that huge isn't a problem. The problem is, what will they build it out of? Even if crafted from the toughest alloys, it's size and resulting turbulence will cause it to flex/bend all over the place and fall apart. Metal has a limit to how much it can reinforce itself without being connected to the ground.
Supertankers and aircraft carriers have a fairly enclosed and rounded design, it allows them to take the full blow of the seas. 
But this aircraft stretched far too thin over far too wide an area, strong gusts will simply rip it apart.


----------



## ShaCanX

LOL that thing looks like a giant kite.


----------



## HK_47

wouldn't it be more efficient to have a very large ship in low orbit, that has a hangar for aircraft to land.


----------



## Joe!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*


(Anyone seen Macross)


Ya, it was the first anime series I ever watched









Quote:



wouldn't it be more efficient to have a very large ship in low orbit, that has a hangar for aircraft to land.


How hard is it to get a 747 into low orbit?


----------



## Draygonn

Titans!


----------



## 8ight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aparition;15473181*
> Also remember the actual size of the Reactor would be quite small. Most likely they would take designs from Submarines as their reactors are small yet provide more than adequate power for years of operation, about the size of a medium sized bathroom.
> 
> *Also nuclear reactors don't use weapons grade materials, there is no bomb effect in the case of a meltdown. Chernobyl had a fire in the reactor which put nuclear isotopes into the air, there wasn't a nuke like explosion.*


Chernobyl was caused by a steam explosion that stemmed from numerous safety systems being disabled, and running for hours at dangerously low power causing a HUGE Xenon pit. Xenon-135 being a combustible nuclear poison that the RBMK-1000 (reactor in question) had no detection system for. The graphite tipped control rods (graphite being a moderator) were the last nail in Chernobyls coffin- when a SCRAM (emergency shutdown) was executed the power jumped at first when all the graphite tips hit. Well, needless to say the SCRAM button was pushed when there was a HUGE Xenon pit, and much cooling water present- the resulting jump in power caused the steam explosion that blew the top of the reactor off spewing fuel and irradiated chunks of graphite everywhere. Such a scenario is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to recreate with a modern light-water moderated reactor.

Modern reactors are all required to be slightly under-moderated, have a negative prompt-temperature coefficient, be at least partially light-water moderated, and be enclosed in containment structures that can withstand the effects of core damage.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tippy;15503192*
> If it hasn't been mentioned in the last 25 pages, what about the massive physical forces that wind/turbulence will have on something this big?
> Engineering something that huge isn't a problem. The problem is, what will they build it out of? Even if crafted from the toughest alloys, it's size and resulting turbulence will cause it to flex/bend all over the place and fall apart. Metal has a limit to how much it can reinforce itself without being connected to the ground.
> Supertankers and aircraft carriers have a fairly enclosed and rounded design, it allows them to take the full blow of the seas.
> But this aircraft stretched far too thin over far too wide an area, strong gusts will simply rip it apart.


I'm sure that would all be considered in a final design, not a concept drawing or artists interpretation. With carefully planned flight paths, a runway with a complete hydraulic/air suspension system, and a 3D segmented body these problems could potentially be eliminated. Airfoils and control flaps would adjust automatically to compensate for different conditions. A high enough cruising speed would eliminate the sensation of "gusts" hitting the craft since the speed of the air movement would have to overcome the speed of the craft to affect it.


----------



## Nocturin

Your words made my brain happy!


----------



## Oupavoc

still a scary taught that thing going down, because of the sheer size.


----------



## 8ight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Oupavoc;15519054*
> still a scary taught that thing going down, because of the sheer size.


It would certainly not be a pleasant event, but since %75 of our planet is covered in water (making a crash into the sea most likely), it would be hard for this thing to lose power, and well-planned emergency procedures would no doubt be in place I wouldn't worry. If it was to hit land, it would be because of an EXTREMELY unlikely hijacking and its area of impact would no doubt be evacuated- it would move and turn too slow to NOT know where it would make landfall. Hopefully no civilians will be anywhere near the control deck. The personnel manning such a behemoth would no doubt have thorough training, and rigorous background checks before being allowed on board. Remote overrides and emergency protection systems would be too hard to break, and no military power would DARE touching it because of the threat of nuclear backlash.


----------

