@@user-gu1sz9vi9e Antonov 225 is a Ukrainian transport aircraft, completely developed in Ukraine from the chassis and engines to the fuselage! And as far as I know to this day, the only transport equipped with a gantry crane, which facilitates and accelerates the loading of any transported goods, without the involvement of auxiliary mechanisms and special equipment. What does Russia have to do with it ?!
@@Євген-е4г I get it makes you feel better but we all saw what Ukraine is without Russia. Antonov was a genius but the company still exists today thanks to Russian technology developped during the soviet time. I mean after WWII your country wasn't even one.
@@mattweger437 it's funny Elon is against space-based beamed solar power, but that's another alternative. Everything is slow to phased array. If you built enough of them you could run them in trains, they could act like satellites themselves, just another part of the Starlink network.
@@justicar5 there's no such thing as an unweaponized spacecraft. You always got the torch at the back. It's inevitable. Best thing to do is learn how to use the tools of creation properly.
Bro mustard upload really quality content bro he upload once or twice a month but this guy has comparable quality and even then also he upload so fast like the last video just came a day back
@@AnkitKumar-fo2iz I don't care to compare the two channels. Mustard seldom releases videos but are always gems. This channel might have a little less quality but more than makes up for it from the variety and quantity of content. I enjoy both channels equally.
As I was watching this, I found myself wondering how the planes would connect to allow themselves to be towed. In the WWII example, they were connected on the ground, but this obviously isn't feasible when one plane takes off from the water and the others from land. Then I realized perhaps you could use a system similar to the probe and drogue refueling system. After takeoff, the towing aircraft would trail the tow line with a drogue with heavy-duty locking mechanisms at the end for stability, and the aircraft being towed would fly into formation and plug into the drogue with a probe on their nose. Some reengineering would be necessary, but it seems like a workable solution!
The Molten Salt reactor was invented for this job. It was quickly realised the necessary shielding is too heavy but the ultra simplicity of molten salt made the engineering easy to deliver. The molten salt reactor has been resurrected by the likes of Moltex and Elysium who have fast spectrum reactors that burn irradiated “waste” neckwear fuel. 99% of the energy is extracted against just 4% in before the fuel was taken into storage. That cuts the existing 30,000 years half-life to just 30 years.
Nuclear scares were not what gave nuclear a bad name. That was activists. Many early green groups outright lied about nuclear and took advantage of the publicity and media presence. It still continues to this day with many lying mostly without knowing they are as they are just parroting other organizations and things they heard in the past. Then top that off with a small number of scares and all the sudden a safe when treated with respect power source is seen as infinitely more dangerous then it actually is. Now some of the green groups had a arguably good reason for the lies. Many really did think if we gave up nuclear entirely no one would ever build another nuclear weapon. Completely illogical yes but remember most activist groups especially early on are more emotional then logical so it makes sense. Not saying I would cry if nuclear weapons disappeared for good but nuclear has been a force for good overall and has the potential to do even more.
@@vietoo5056 no, it’s officially pronunciations. You could find many clips when usaf generals addressed to congress . Just like many military terms,F-16 is F16 not F dash 16 or A-10 is A10 not A dash 10.
@@icy2527 No I mean the official technical terms, of course MP's and crews will prefer to call them F16 or A10. But engineers and blueprints usually acknowledge the 'dash' in the name, because it can sometimes cause ambiguity
@@vietoo5056 In the documentary like this no need for dash, that’s my point. And I never heard my mechanic friends refer to their F-16 as F dash 16.(edit:typo)
@@icy2527 I think he means engineers in terms of vehicle identification, for instance there's an American heavy tank called T34 but then there's the infamous Russian T-34. Another instance is the American T28 super heavy tank and the Russian medium tank T-28, but you're right saying C "dash" 5 isn't necessary
This was a great video! Imagine these behemoths flying non stop around the oceans it baffles the mind in today’s health & safety conscious world…great offer on skillshare too I signed up! I hope this helps you carry on making great videos thank you 💯
The US government already toyed with a nuclear aircraft. The finding was that the insulation needed to prevent the pilot obtaining radiation sickness was so heavy it prevents the aircraft from taking off. Even with a radiation suit, radiation levels in the cockpit were too high for the suit to be sustainable for any real length of time. The second issue also being if the aircraft were to crash there would be no way to contain any and all radiation that may spread over the crash site. Unlike a nuclear bomb the radiation spilled from the reactor has a significantly longer half life. So any crash site which may or may not be densely populated would become a radioactive hot spot from many centuries to several millions of years.
The problem: the plane was designed around old-style pressurized uranium nuclear reactors. New Generation IV nuclear reactor technology that won't require a lot of expensive radiation shielding may actually make the whole idea viable again.
I noticed a big mistake in the video's information. 8:40 You said the engine technology was only lightly investigated and would take a decade to make feasible . This simply isn't true as the us army created the NEPA program (Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft) all the way back in 1946 to study and create such engines. They produced a nuclear powered propeller based plane (NB-36H) and started on both closed and open loop jet engines. In 1961 project Pluto was started that created 2 nuclear powered ramjet cruise missiles . There was also the ws-125 nuclear bomber that had two nuclear engines built and tested in 1961. If this design is from the 70's (which i doubt) then prior to it the army had already created at least 3 types of engines, reactors and started work on nuclear rocket engines.
I think they will have to fucos on a flying saucer that can travel in a lightning speed and can change its course In any direction just like a billiard ball. It's a 💯 percent game changer.
How about the nuclear aircraft being designed to produce more turbulence that the following aircraft can use for flight aid? The reactor has the power, time to put it to use
I came here to learn about a nuclear tug. I instead learned about the douglas F4D skyray. 0:50 i had no idea the navy operated a carrier capable delta wing aircraft
A nuclear tug to tow cargo aircraft seems like a rather pointless and expensive exercise when in-flight refueling is an option. Granted in-flight refuelling planes might have range restrictions just like the cargo planes but taking the Black Buck missions from the Falkland's War as an example a fleet of several in-flight refueling aircraft can be used to get an aircraft to a destination well beyond it's regular range. I'm somewhat confident that since no extra development would be needed the expense of a fleet of many hundred in flight refueling aircraft would be much cheaper (at the very least over the short to medium term) than developing and building a fleet of dozens of nuclear tug aircraft.
there is even a sneak peak of the flying wing in this video haha! so basically the video is completed and im going through the music/soundeffects stages, so pretty much done.
Crazy era when lobbyists convinced politicians that an aircraft might possibly carry a ‘safe’ nuclear reactor aloft. Nevertheless, multi-millions were contracted out to investigate and eventually eliminate this dangerous proposition.
A nuclear powered blimp I could stay at the edge of the atmosphere forever it'll be the ultimate safe House well in like an apocalypse where people didn't have planes no more
nuclear aircraft carriers would probably be safe because they don't have a potential to drop from the sky. and they have unlimited water supply thanks to on board reverse osmosis filters.
condiment, thats the word jeez i took 20 minutes writing my comment trying to remember that word, oh well my stupidity still managed to get F&E to heart my comment
Just think If you build them today and use them to tug planes across oceans only. How much it would be cheaper to fly over to Europe. Or from Britain to Japan by tug over Atlantic and Pacific. For most of those flights you just need fuel for take off and minimum fuel for landing. Heck in this age you could make them drones, they alternatives for cleaner nuclear reactors and they can be detachable so if something wrong with plane just eject them in armored floatable container that can easily be picked up .
There was a proposal for long-range nuclear-powered cargo planes. They would be BIG though - ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19710028801 . As an example, the small design was 900 tons (compared to a fully-loaded 747 of just over 400 tons, or the AN-225 of ~630 tons)
thank you very kind words! i hope that i can get a little more views, but thats youtube life haha. i want to get to 100k subs, that would be my dream :)
Another superplane with the potential to've been an Airborne Aircraft Carrier, very cool Also is the footnote basically the planes becoming a dormant super-highway where they could enter/exit the formation at their origin/destination respectively?
The autopilot would likely be written so to require human input every few hours or so, and a list of pre-loaded landing locations so it doesn't try to land in a lake or near a terrorist camp
This is what happens when you don't use rare earth materials properly. If they just kept producing clean low cost stable energy we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.
I can already think of a better idea. Instead of planes, use airships/hybrid airships. Power them with hydrogen fuel cells. Make a nuclear airship which can condense water vapor (such as in clouds) into water. Perform electrolysis on the water to produce hydrogen, and refuel the other airships using the hydrogen.
By 1978, both the United States and the Soviet Union had tried (and failed) to build a nuclear plane. The American nuclear plane never flew, because the the radiation shielding was too heavy, and lighter materials wouldn't provide adequate protection. The Soviet plane flew, but they never managed to properly protect the crew from the radiation, since adequate shielding would be too heavy, so they too abandoned the concept. Whomever proposed this project knew full well that it was a pointless money sink. And there really was no need. 1:51 makes it seem as if a C-5 couldn't cross the Atlantic, except the Azores are well within range, and can be used to stop for refuelling. Furthermore, there is an American air base on Newfoundland, from where they could reach Ireland. The whole thing was a scam by men who where desperately pretending their continued employment was not a pointless burden on the military.
@@FoundAndExplained I look that up in search engine and nothing comes up except the "space tug". Could you please provide some citations to help us out?
@@FoundAndExplained that's not it actual name. You have failed to give one source or citation so I can't find it anywhere. It almost looks like you made it up
"i could do this, i could make a channel called ketchup"
mhm, because the counterpart already exists >->
Somebody's already done a channel called 'Ranch Dressing'? Damn, I was just too slow!
And then using the F&E sound and cloud intro.. lol that made me ha-ha real loud
Mustard is so good though
@William Marten I'm more a Bbq sauce type of guy
2:22 that Mustard reference.
cute to see you guys actually do a collab as Mustard and Ketchup.
I don't know if he loves or hates Mustard, but the mention is always funny.
the nuclear tug literally looks like what happens if a giant ekranoplan merged with a antonov 225
i thought it was an ekranoplan from the thumbnail
Well i wouldn't recommend russian tech and nuclear power
@@user-gu1sz9vi9e Antonov 225 is a Ukrainian transport aircraft, completely developed in Ukraine from the chassis and engines to the fuselage! And as far as I know to this day, the only transport equipped with a gantry crane, which facilitates and accelerates the loading of any transported goods, without the involvement of auxiliary mechanisms and special equipment. What does Russia have to do with it ?!
@@Євген-е4г you wrote a literal essay lol
@@Євген-е4г I get it makes you feel better but we all saw what Ukraine is without Russia. Antonov was a genius but the company still exists today thanks to Russian technology developped during the soviet time. I mean after WWII your country wasn't even one.
The good ole days when nuclear power seemed like a good solution to almost any problem.
There’s many safer ways to deal with nuclear power the world needs to invent in
Nuclear power is still a viable solution,
especially, for aircraft.
This is awesome
@@Olkv3D until there is a containment breach or crash. 👀
We allow nuclear powered vehicles on and in the sea;
so, why do we exclude the airborne ones?
2:24 Mustard is happy he now has a condiment friend
With micronuclear coming out, it could just have been ahead of its time.
This and drone technology. It could be like an escalator for planes
@@piisfun think of scary thing, it's like that except scarier!!!!
@@mattweger437 it's funny Elon is against space-based beamed solar power, but that's another alternative. Everything is slow to phased array.
If you built enough of them you could run them in trains, they could act like satellites themselves, just another part of the Starlink network.
@@jtjames79 beamed power is way to easy to weaponize
@@justicar5 there's no such thing as an unweaponized spacecraft. You always got the torch at the back.
It's inevitable. Best thing to do is learn how to use the tools of creation properly.
9:30 airbus flying in v formation? man i would love to see that if possible, especially from the passenger POV
Imagine if they see a target down below and all do a coordinated roll dive down.
Target spotted TALLY HO!
Is your skillshare sponsor spot ketchup joke a reference to mustard?
Pretty much
Bro mustard upload really quality content bro he upload once or twice a month but this guy has comparable quality and even then also he upload so fast like the last video just came a day back
@@AnkitKumar-fo2iz I don't care to compare the two channels. Mustard seldom releases videos but are always gems. This channel might have a little less quality but more than makes up for it from the variety and quantity of content. I enjoy both channels equally.
@@AnkitKumar-fo2iz Mustard post some of their work exclusively on Nebula
Hence it looks drought compare to this channel
I swear it's secretly the same person
As I was watching this, I found myself wondering how the planes would connect to allow themselves to be towed. In the WWII example, they were connected on the ground, but this obviously isn't feasible when one plane takes off from the water and the others from land. Then I realized perhaps you could use a system similar to the probe and drogue refueling system. After takeoff, the towing aircraft would trail the tow line with a drogue with heavy-duty locking mechanisms at the end for stability, and the aircraft being towed would fly into formation and plug into the drogue with a probe on their nose. Some reengineering would be necessary, but it seems like a workable solution!
That's the most soviet looking plane ever.
The Molten Salt reactor was invented for this job. It was quickly realised the necessary shielding is too heavy but the ultra simplicity of molten salt made the engineering easy to deliver.
The molten salt reactor has been resurrected by the likes of Moltex and Elysium who have fast spectrum reactors that burn irradiated “waste” neckwear fuel. 99% of the energy is extracted against just 4% in before the fuel was taken into storage. That cuts the existing 30,000 years half-life to just 30 years.
I'm loving these new videos! Although I must admit I did giggle a little when you said "Cee-dash-five". :)
>Sea Transport Infrastructure
>Inefficient
Isn't it always amusing when the Air Force tries so hard to justify its own existence?
Imagine if we never had all the nuclear scares and we actually had nuclear planes. That would be awesome
Nuclear scares were not what gave nuclear a bad name. That was activists. Many early green groups outright lied about nuclear and took advantage of the publicity and media presence. It still continues to this day with many lying mostly without knowing they are as they are just parroting other organizations and things they heard in the past. Then top that off with a small number of scares and all the sudden a safe when treated with respect power source is seen as infinitely more dangerous then it actually is.
Now some of the green groups had a arguably good reason for the lies. Many really did think if we gave up nuclear entirely no one would ever build another nuclear weapon. Completely illogical yes but remember most activist groups especially early on are more emotional then logical so it makes sense. Not saying I would cry if nuclear weapons disappeared for good but nuclear has been a force for good overall and has the potential to do even more.
C-5 is pronounced like C5,no need for “dash” in the middle.
I think C 'dash' 5 is the official way of saying the name. But the name C5 is easier to say
@@vietoo5056 no, it’s officially pronunciations. You could find many clips when usaf generals addressed to congress . Just like many military terms,F-16 is F16 not F dash 16 or A-10 is A10 not A dash 10.
@@icy2527 No I mean the official technical terms, of course MP's and crews will prefer to call them F16 or A10. But engineers and blueprints usually acknowledge the 'dash' in the name, because it can sometimes cause ambiguity
@@vietoo5056 In the documentary like this no need for dash, that’s my
point. And I never heard my mechanic friends refer to their F-16 as F dash 16.(edit:typo)
@@icy2527 I think he means engineers in terms of vehicle identification, for instance there's an American heavy tank called T34 but then there's the infamous Russian T-34. Another instance is the American T28 super heavy tank and the Russian medium tank T-28, but you're right saying C "dash" 5 isn't necessary
Why was I drinking milk when you mentioned "ketchup".
We are 17 hours away from the premiere and there are already people commenting that this is fine I guess
there are people already giving thumbs down :(
Unfortunately
@@FoundAndExplained we can use them as test subjects for nuclear reactor development....
@@captainpoptarts sounds interesting
@@captainpoptarts
I hear you
“It was never built”
USA:” yes that’s right never built”
This was a great video! Imagine these behemoths flying non stop around the oceans it baffles the mind in today’s health & safety conscious world…great offer on skillshare too I signed up! I hope this helps you carry on making great videos thank you 💯
Snorts a line of coke, watches an episode of Thunderbirds and goes to a drawing board
The US government already toyed with a nuclear aircraft. The finding was that the insulation needed to prevent the pilot obtaining radiation sickness was so heavy it prevents the aircraft from taking off. Even with a radiation suit, radiation levels in the cockpit were too high for the suit to be sustainable for any real length of time. The second issue also being if the aircraft were to crash there would be no way to contain any and all radiation that may spread over the crash site. Unlike a nuclear bomb the radiation spilled from the reactor has a significantly longer half life. So any crash site which may or may not be densely populated would become a radioactive hot spot from many centuries to several millions of years.
Cant wait, your videos always brighten my day!
Glad you like them!
The problem: the plane was designed around old-style pressurized uranium nuclear reactors. New Generation IV nuclear reactor technology that won't require a lot of expensive radiation shielding may actually make the whole idea viable again.
I'm sure they could pull it off if they really wanted to. Kind of wish they did lol
I noticed a big mistake in the video's information. 8:40 You said the engine technology was only lightly investigated and would take a decade to make feasible .
This simply isn't true as the us army created the NEPA program (Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft) all the way back in 1946 to study and create such engines.
They produced a nuclear powered propeller based plane (NB-36H) and started on both closed and open loop jet engines.
In 1961 project Pluto was started that created 2 nuclear powered ramjet cruise missiles . There was also the ws-125 nuclear bomber that had two nuclear engines built and tested in 1961.
If this design is from the 70's (which i doubt) then prior to it the army had already created at least 3 types of engines, reactors and started work on nuclear rocket engines.
2:27 I see what you did there.
if your nuclear jet engine requires the reactor to be "close to melt-down" you might wanna rethink this whole nuclear jet engine thing, lol.
this one was designed for cancelled SLAM missile
I think they will have to fucos on a flying saucer that can travel in a lightning speed and can change its course In any direction just like a billiard ball. It's a 💯 percent game changer.
Thumbnail gives me Antonov AN-225 Myria vibes
BEAUTIFUL AS ALWAYS
Wow your making these videos fast!
i heard you wanted something to watch :)
The USAF developed functioning nuclear turbojet engine prototypes. They were still a few years from being flightworthy, but far closer than you imply.
For sure. I did more research this morning and I think I’ll do a whole video on nuke planes
Casually throwing shade at Mustard. . .
Ahah no it’s an in joke
Honestly I think a flock of a320s and 50s with a 380 mother goose at the lead might rival the tug on cool factor...
How about the nuclear aircraft being designed to produce more turbulence that the following aircraft can use for flight aid? The reactor has the power, time to put it to use
7:52 says fish,shows whale...lol.Great vid anyway!
i'll take it!
Lmaoooo that ketchup joke tho, almost didn't catch it. @mustard
That's a lot of nuclear hate...
Anybody that is dismissing of nuclear has zero credibility for speaking on green energy
The upload frequency is awesome
I came here to learn about a nuclear tug. I instead learned about the douglas F4D skyray. 0:50 i had no idea the navy operated a carrier capable delta wing aircraft
What is it with Lockheed and nuclear power?
They had a nuclear power fetish
To me, an aviation expert, with an electrical engineer father, the scariest thing I can think of is a nuclear powered airplane~
Why
what about nuclear armed?
I love the 3d graphics on this show, are they 'drawn' from scratch or imported from other sources? if home-made what software is used?
Blender! its free and I encourage anyone to use it!
"Think about all those fish," shows a whale...
didn’t make the premiere, but enjoyed anyways!
A nuclear tug to tow cargo aircraft seems like a rather pointless and expensive exercise when in-flight refueling is an option. Granted in-flight refuelling planes might have range restrictions just like the cargo planes but taking the Black Buck missions from the Falkland's War as an example a fleet of several in-flight refueling aircraft can be used to get an aircraft to a destination well beyond it's regular range. I'm somewhat confident that since no extra development would be needed the expense of a fleet of many hundred in flight refueling aircraft would be much cheaper (at the very least over the short to medium term) than developing and building a fleet of dozens of nuclear tug aircraft.
"C dash 5"?
Man you are on fire! 🔥🔥 You'll get to 100k subs and you deserve a lot more! Please consider a video about the YB-49
1 min left mate
there is even a sneak peak of the flying wing in this video haha! so basically the video is completed and im going through the music/soundeffects stages, so pretty much done.
08:24...... “sproon”? 🤔 do you mean “strewn”? Remember, google is your friend!👍👍
Crazy era when lobbyists convinced politicians that an aircraft might possibly carry a ‘safe’ nuclear reactor aloft. Nevertheless, multi-millions were contracted out to investigate and eventually eliminate this dangerous proposition.
I’m gonna make a train channel and name it Virgin Olive oil
Wow the line is extremely durable
A nuclear powered blimp I could stay at the edge of the atmosphere forever it'll be the ultimate safe House well in like an apocalypse where people didn't have planes no more
nuclear aircraft carriers would probably be safe because they don't have a potential to drop from the sky. and they have unlimited water supply thanks to on board reverse osmosis filters.
@@xxxBradTxxx but what about food supplies?
@@freeze1625 hydroponics?
“I could make a channel called Ketchup”
Yeah there’s totally no other condiment such as mustard named science channel
condiment, thats the word jeez i took 20 minutes writing my comment trying to remember that word, oh well my stupidity still managed to get F&E to heart my comment
Love his shots at mustard 😂 brilliant
I wonder if in the future we’ll get a nuclear powered aircraft, and it would be powered by nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission.
Love the Mustard reference 😂😂
Can you do something on never built airships?
Wonder if there is one on trains?
He should make a video on trains and ships and other unusual vehicles
Where do you get the 3D models for your videos from?
make them
What is the song played before the video starts?
Congrats on getting sponsorship!
It would work if you use thorium molten salt reactor
I love your vd i will stay here for 15 hours
Murcia says lol to the AN-225....hold my beer
Civil airliners flying in close formation is a terrible idea. Airbus is out of their minds.
There’s was actually a concept on a nuclear powered bomber back in the 50s and 60s
heck there were nuclear powered *CARS* in that era. :D
so it's very wonderful
Talks about fish, shows mammals
Thath "ketchup channel" joke was utterly funny.
so why not make a super giant nuclear carrier hauler transport all-in-one
very large wings, the flight deck, pun intended
Just think If you build them today and use them to tug planes across oceans only. How much it would be cheaper to fly over to Europe. Or from Britain to Japan by tug over Atlantic and Pacific. For most of those flights you just need fuel for take off and minimum fuel for landing. Heck in this age you could make them drones, they alternatives for cleaner nuclear reactors and they can be detachable so if something wrong with plane just eject them in armored floatable container that can easily be picked up .
How would the land-based C5As hook up to the sea-based Tug?
There was a proposal for long-range nuclear-powered cargo planes. They would be BIG though - ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19710028801 . As an example, the small design was 900 tons (compared to a fully-loaded 747 of just over 400 tons, or the AN-225 of ~630 tons)
Aircraft designers in the 60s: Nuclear power was always the answer
This is definitely at the top of the list of most underrated UA-cam channels
thank you very kind words! i hope that i can get a little more views, but thats youtube life haha. i want to get to 100k subs, that would be my dream :)
@@FoundAndExplained I hope you can get there!
SOUND WOULD MAKE EFFECTIVE LANDING COVER FOR TROOPS
Another superplane with the potential to've been an Airborne Aircraft Carrier, very cool
Also is the footnote basically the planes becoming a dormant super-highway where they could enter/exit the formation at their origin/destination respectively?
*insert Ace Combat joke here*
Was the channel named ketchup a reference to Mustard? Lol
Imagine if the impostor sabotages the reactor of the aircraft and the crew fixing it!
😳imposter sussy😳
ketchup vs mustard: the holy wars
No!
Mustard and Ketchup are the Best of pals on my hotdog.✌️👍 Yum yum!
"Think of all those fish" shows a marine mammal!
I wonder what would happen if the pilots died. If it was on autopilot wouldn't it just fly around the world until its reactor ran out?
The autopilot would likely be written so to require human input every few hours or so, and a list of pre-loaded landing locations so it doesn't try to land in a lake or near a terrorist camp
@@toddkes5890 ok that makes sense
Love for nepal
hope to visit one day!
Great vid! However, just say “C 5”.... you don’t need to say: C “dash” 5....😩
The DASH, man.
You can't leave out the DASH.
The DASH is what separates it.
@@Olkv3D.... C-5.....you SPELL it with the dash, but you don’t SAY “dash”....
but the DASH makes it funner.
@@Olkv3D.... that is a good point.....ok, the “dash” must stay!!!!👍👍✅✅
DASH
"Stupid fishes, amirite?"
::shows mammal::
As we New Yorkers often say... Forget About It!
Chuck Norris once stood on the wingtips of 2 C5's with several people standing on top of him while he did the splits.
This is what happens when you don't use rare earth materials properly. If they just kept producing clean low cost stable energy we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.
What 4:30 AM Well I will not be able to see this video premiere.
I might be the first one to comment here.
I have a lot of assignments to do, i have to wake at 8 it's 12:30 but i have to watch it :)
Why premiere in the middle of the night?
Because timezones. Welcome to 2021.
Not everyone lives in the same place bro
I can already think of a better idea. Instead of planes, use airships/hybrid airships. Power them with hydrogen fuel cells. Make a nuclear airship which can condense water vapor (such as in clouds) into water. Perform electrolysis on the water to produce hydrogen, and refuel the other airships using the hydrogen.
I must say it would've been a site to be hold for passengers on 747 airline jets being pulled by this air tug.
Tic tac powers the future
By 1978, both the United States and the Soviet Union had tried (and failed) to build a nuclear plane. The American nuclear plane never flew, because the the radiation shielding was too heavy, and lighter materials wouldn't provide adequate protection. The Soviet plane flew, but they never managed to properly protect the crew from the radiation, since adequate shielding would be too heavy, so they too abandoned the concept. Whomever proposed this project knew full well that it was a pointless money sink. And there really was no need. 1:51 makes it seem as if a C-5 couldn't cross the Atlantic, except the Azores are well within range, and can be used to stop for refuelling. Furthermore, there is an American air base on Newfoundland, from where they could reach Ireland. The whole thing was a scam by men who where desperately pretending their continued employment was not a pointless burden on the military.
He attacc
He protecc
But most importantly,
He upload fastt
It was never MADE How can you know any of these things ?
And where is Superman when you need Him ?
Anyone know the name of the plane? Can't find it anywhere
Lockheed tug lol
@@FoundAndExplained I look that up in search engine and nothing comes up except the "space tug". Could you please provide some citations to help us out?
@@FoundAndExplained what sources did you use? I can not find anything
@@FoundAndExplained that's not it actual name. You have failed to give one source or citation so I can't find it anywhere. It almost looks like you made it up
A channel like yours called Mustard you say...oh naughty naughty lol
“Such as nuclear power” *AD*
had to put it somewhere in the first two minutes :( :)