I got two video updates at the same time for your channel. Now I don't know how to choose. I'll watch one on my phone and one on my computer at the same time. 👍
When I was on an attack sub during the 80's, I visited Nagasaki and the atomic bomb museum. Cold War and all...they would not let us port up because we were nuclear powered....we had to stay 2 miles away. Then, Fukushima happened later....
A more interesting story is Project Orion, where there was a plan to use Nuclear Warheads to propel space craft like surfboards riding the nuclear Shockwave. Theoretically, it would produce much faster speeds of travel than what could be achieved by rockets.
Don't know why people think this was such a bad idea. We have nuclear powered warships and submarines and don't give it a second thought. The risk of a disaster with this kind of thing is way overstated. It's not as if you are dealing with huge amounts of radioactive material like you would at a nuclear power plant. With properly sealed containers, the risk is pretty small.
Actually that was the primary reason the project was cancelled. Do remember that each flight was followed by a platoon of marines to deal with possible crash. They called themselves "The Glow in the Dark brigade" and would have had to deal with any clean up. Airplanes have to be lightweight and program was focused on developing light weight ways to shield the crew. All the safety issues are part of what cancelled effort. Plus the expense of the program was getting outright stupid.
Fly two in formation, each will kill the others crew. The radiation shield only covered the crew, leaving a bare reactor facing in every other direction. So you can't fly around other aircraft, or over cities, you can't land anywhere or service the aircraft or even walk up to get into it, BECAUSE : radioactive as hell.
If we can get fusion figured out and engineered, a lot of possibilities open up for nuclear power. Fission has too many drawbacks to be implemented much more than it already is.
Pure hokum. The NB36 never actually had a reactor installed. It was merely a mock up of the containment field. The pilots said it was much like flying a glider because of the shielding attenuating the sound. This project was exactly the type of military/industrial complex schemes that Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address when he left office as the President of the United States.
They had a prototype nuclear powered missile that would simply fly around on autopilot scattering contamination. Russia tried the same thing and fried its aircrews in the process.
I think that it would be possible to, at least, design a safe nuclear powered aircraft. Weight would not be the biggest challenge. The MTOW of the Antonov An-225 would be more than enough for a nuclear passenger aircraft. Reactors have become much safer, heat-exchanging technology has also developed. If a reactor could be shown to be safe under any and all eventualities, including falling to the depths of an ocean, and crash into the face of a mountain at cruise speeds, it could be done. But that would require a massive crash structure around the reactor (which would double as shielding), much larger than the reactor itself. I think that it would look like a large spherical'ish shape to which the wings and fuselage would attach. It could also be a blended body or flying wing as long as the reactor sphere were to be placed at around 25% of the chord's length from the leading edge. Whatever route were to be taken, this thing would likely be no smaller than a 747, thereby restricting which airports it could use, as well as requiring new maintenance hangars to accommodate its massive frontal area.
The title doesn’t match the contents very well. Then in the video there is a lot of CGI of some hypothetical bomber that never even got off the drawing board. Then there’s two hours about Hiroshima. What kind of random mess is this?
It's ironic that in-air refueling killed the atomic plane. Given that a huge fuel carrying nuclear drone would be pretty useful. Kind of like how they have the constantly flying refueling airship rings in the movie Stealth.
The Soviets built and flew a direct cycle bomber. That means the air passed through the reactor, and the plane spread nuclear waste everywhere. Everyone involved died of cancer.
I remember back in the 60s the government wanted to build reactors all over the place (one in every large city). I remember reading articles in "The Weekly Reader" in grade school. The American people were never told of the risks. Then Three Mile Island happened; Whoops, LOL
There wasn't a SINGLE "electrical" issue. The issues were about propulsion, containment/shielding, aircrew health/survavability and mission success forecast. The reactor itself was no big problem - carrying it around safely on an airframe that itself would regularly fall out of the sky, THAT was a concern.
One could power lighter electric turbines and a smaller airframe, but, in the end, "smaller" boils down to missiles and just lobbing gilde bombs by doing a backflip
and at this point- we have ICBMs that travel to space within another housing that conforms to the missile that doesn't not look like another missile- where the U.S. has to have a missile for its missile to do missile stuff.
Did USA paid royalties to the owners of the implosion-type A-bomb patent ? The patent was in the name of Nobel-Prized Frédéric Joliot-Curie and his two aides alban and Kowarski... Yup, the A-bomb paten t is French and was registered at the CNRS in Paris, May 1939... ATM, France also owned 100% of world's heavy water stockpile
When this program was cancelled, it was because of one simple question, " What happens if one crashed Perfect example of ' we can build it, but the question of should we was never asked. This aircraft was a failure because not one engineer even considered the possibility of a serious crash in a populated area. Utter unthinking Cold War madness that didn't even consider the safety of the public. You were all expendable in the Cold War, and the nuclear armed Generals like LeMay didn't care.
What a joke. Not one mention of the real end problem. How to convert thermal power it a propulsion engine. Can’t be pistons, can’t be turbo fan or jet and two heavy for steam turbines.
Compared to?.... I wholeheartedly agree that Northrop should have recieved more funding for the XB-35 and YB-49, but other than that the Peacemaker had no contemporaries until the Stratofortreas entered service almost a decade later..
➤➤ Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes
➤➤ Join the channel: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join
➤ IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos
➤ FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos
➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj
➤ THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos
I really enjoy these historical re-caps ! thanks Drone Scapes !
I got two video updates at the same time for your channel.
Now I don't know how to choose.
I'll watch one on my phone and one on my computer at the same time. 👍
Good choice.
When I was on an attack sub during the 80's, I visited Nagasaki and the atomic bomb museum. Cold War and all...they would not let us port up because we were nuclear powered....we had to stay 2 miles away. Then, Fukushima happened later....
Excellent job coordinating the visuals with the narration to tell a complete and professional presented story.
As a veteran and a lifelong military history freak,it doesn't get much better than Dronescapes on YT. Always solid work! 🇺🇸👍
They never thought that a plane carrying a reactor would wear out long before the reactor did.
Even as a kid, I wrestled with how the power would be converted into propulsion without killing the planet Armored Core 4, Kojima particle style.
A more interesting story is Project Orion, where there was a plan to use Nuclear Warheads to propel space craft like surfboards riding the nuclear Shockwave. Theoretically, it would produce much faster speeds of travel than what could be achieved by rockets.
Often wondered about atomic-powered airplanes!
Cannot believe they even went beyond thinking this up. Airborne reactors? What could go wrong!
Don't know why people think this was such a bad idea. We have nuclear powered warships and submarines and don't give it a second thought. The risk of a disaster with this kind of thing is way overstated. It's not as if you are dealing with huge amounts of radioactive material like you would at a nuclear power plant. With properly sealed containers, the risk is pretty small.
Actually that was the primary reason the project was cancelled. Do remember that each flight was followed by a platoon of marines to deal with possible crash. They called themselves "The Glow in the Dark brigade" and would have had to deal with any clean up. Airplanes have to be lightweight and program was focused on developing light weight ways to shield the crew. All the safety issues are part of what cancelled effort. Plus the expense of the program was getting outright stupid.
Fly two in formation, each will kill the others crew. The radiation shield only covered the crew, leaving a bare reactor facing in every other direction. So you can't fly around other aircraft, or over cities, you can't land anywhere or service the aircraft or even walk up to get into it, BECAUSE : radioactive as hell.
Its more of a physics problem.
If we can get fusion figured out and engineered, a lot of possibilities open up for nuclear power. Fission has too many drawbacks to be implemented much more than it already is.
Check out the u f o at 15:45
Pure hokum. The NB36 never actually had a reactor installed. It was merely a mock up of the containment field. The pilots said it was much like flying a glider because of the shielding attenuating the sound.
This project was exactly the type of military/industrial complex schemes that Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address when he left office as the President of the United States.
They had a prototype nuclear powered missile that would simply fly around on autopilot scattering contamination. Russia tried the same thing and fried its aircrews in the process.
There was never a prototype...
I think I heard a doc clip about a guy watching a nuke test (in the trenches) saw the flash through his helmet he had over his face.
Now that drones are a thing, a nuclear plane could be made, though no one would support such a potentially dangerous hazard in our skies.
I think that it would be possible to, at least, design a safe nuclear powered aircraft.
Weight would not be the biggest challenge. The MTOW of the Antonov An-225 would be more than enough for a nuclear passenger aircraft.
Reactors have become much safer, heat-exchanging technology has also developed. If a reactor could be shown to be safe under any and all eventualities, including falling to the depths of an ocean, and crash into the face of a mountain at cruise speeds, it could be done. But that would require a massive crash structure around the reactor (which would double as shielding), much larger than the reactor itself.
I think that it would look like a large spherical'ish shape to which the wings and fuselage would attach. It could also be a blended body or flying wing as long as the reactor sphere were to be placed at around 25% of the chord's length from the leading edge.
Whatever route were to be taken, this thing would likely be no smaller than a 747, thereby restricting which airports it could use, as well as requiring new maintenance hangars to accommodate its massive frontal area.
The title doesn’t match the contents very well. Then in the video there is a lot of CGI of some hypothetical bomber that never even got off the drawing board. Then there’s two hours about Hiroshima. What kind of random mess is this?
You obviously didn't pay attention.
It's ironic that in-air refueling killed the atomic plane. Given that a huge fuel carrying nuclear drone would be pretty useful. Kind of like how they have the constantly flying refueling airship rings in the movie Stealth.
What has the last 3/4 of this documentary to do with a atomic powered bomber?
Thank God this Atomic power bomber was not used!!! I wondered what the Soviets have done???
The Soviets built and flew a direct cycle bomber. That means the air passed through the reactor, and the plane spread nuclear waste everywhere. Everyone involved died of cancer.
The "special squadron" was the _509th Composite Group._
Best
Its so powerful
JUST A THOUGHT. I wonder if a Thorium reactor might have worked.
We can't have too many nuclear power plants, then electricity would be cheap, and that's just not acceptable.
I remember back in the 60s the government wanted to build reactors all over the place (one in every large city). I remember reading articles in "The Weekly Reader" in grade school. The American people were never told of the risks. Then Three Mile Island happened; Whoops, LOL
It's the NIMBY principle as well. We need to get fusion developed before we can implement a nuclear grid. Much safer.
It probably caused more electrical issues than it was worth at the time. They simply didn't have the tools of experience.
There wasn't a SINGLE "electrical" issue. The issues were about propulsion, containment/shielding, aircrew health/survavability and mission success forecast. The reactor itself was no big problem - carrying it around safely on an airframe that itself would regularly fall out of the sky, THAT was a concern.
@@karlchilders5420 i meant interference, mostly, and i figured that much. i havent got eyes on to hit it with a laser, to be fair.
One could power lighter electric turbines and a smaller airframe, but, in the end, "smaller" boils down to missiles and just lobbing gilde bombs by doing a backflip
and at this point- we have ICBMs that travel to space within another housing that conforms to the missile that doesn't not look like another missile- where the U.S. has to have a missile for its missile to do missile stuff.
Very little about “an atomic bomber” past the 23 minute mark.
The atomic bomb is already obsolete
An interesting video on the mission to Hiroshima. The title mentions something else completely and hardly mentions it. Most confusing.
Mad as hatters
With liquid salt reactors this aircraft or similar ones could be reality.
Did USA paid royalties to the owners of the implosion-type A-bomb patent ?
The patent was in the name of Nobel-Prized Frédéric Joliot-Curie and his two aides alban and Kowarski...
Yup, the A-bomb paten t is French and was registered at the CNRS in Paris, May 1939... ATM, France also owned 100% of world's heavy water stockpile
😳😬🤯
Is this mentioning the flying crowbar before I invest 2 hours 😮
When this program was cancelled, it was because of one simple question, " What happens if one crashed
Perfect example of ' we can build it, but the question of should we was never asked.
This aircraft was a failure because not one engineer even considered the possibility of a serious crash in a populated area.
Utter unthinking Cold War madness that didn't even consider the safety of the public.
You were all expendable in the Cold War, and the nuclear armed Generals like LeMay didn't care.
What a joke. Not one mention of the real end problem. How to convert thermal power it a propulsion engine. Can’t be pistons, can’t be turbo fan or jet and two heavy for steam turbines.
Maybe a Stirling engine? Or radiovoltaic cells embedded in the shielding?
Dumb dumb dumb project
Very little about the NX-2. Waist of time. Nothing about the NX-2 after the 23 minute mark.
the peacemaker was trash
Compared to?.... I wholeheartedly agree that Northrop should have recieved more funding for the XB-35 and YB-49, but other than that the Peacemaker had no contemporaries until the Stratofortreas entered service almost a decade later..
@@darthnihilus511- it was, but the push-propellers configuration ensured that it cooked engines almost as bad as the early B-29...