4 ms·

So how exactly does a "Nuclear-Propelled cruise missile" work? I would have assumed the weight of any nuclear reactor to make any such contraption impossible? I

So how exactly does a "Nuclear-Propelled cruise missile" work? I would have assumed the weight of any nuclear reactor to make any such contraption impossible? Is this a conventional nuclear reactor producing electricity to run an electric motor, or is there some other scheme I haven't heard of?

wcoenen 7y ago
It's a lightweight nuclear reactor that heats up air for propulsion. US project from the fifties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto Current russian project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
- dTal 7y ago
  It boggles me that any country in the 21st century would attempt to build such a horrifyingly irresponsible machine, geopolitics be damned. This thing is basically a dirty bomb on an unstoppable cruise missile. Any reactor powerful enough to drive a thing like that is going to make a big radioactive mess wherever it lands. There's no safe way to test it, either - you can use a dummy warhead, but you can't use a dummy reactor. Also, clearly such a thing must be air-cooled, which means the moment you have a launch failure, you have a meltdown on your hands (dollars to doughnuts something like that happened here). Just developing such a thing is going to cause a huge raft of nuclear incidents.
  - tdxgx 7y ago
    Nuclear planes have already been built and tested. The problem is the shielding to keep the pilots from dying is too heavy. A cruise missile gets rid of the need for that.
    - dTal 7y ago
      Even if that were true, which as far as I can tell it isn't (both Soviet and US nuclear aircraft programs were canceled before any powered prototypes were made), aircraft at least are not meant to crash. All cruise missiles crash. Deliberately pulverizing a fueled-up nuclear reactor is not a nice thing to do. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the risk of crashing and making a mess was a factor in the cancellation of both programs.
      - bb611 7y ago
        Its job is to deliver a fission warhead without being intercepted by current or future antimissile defences, the dirty bomb inside is comparatively unimportant.
  - macca321 7y ago
    Perhaps for the lower carbon output?
  - situational87 7y ago
    I think that's sort of the point of most nuclear weapons, to inflict massive damage and spread radiation where they land. Kind of hard to put that genie back in the bottle now. The history of Russia and the United States shows they are not terribly concerned about casualties or making large sections of their homelands uninhabitable to further weapons development. Why would you expect that to change all of a sudden in 2019?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

wcoenen 7y ago

It's a lightweight nuclear reactor that heats up air for propulsion. US project from the fifties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto Current russian project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik

dTal 7y ago
It boggles me that any country in the 21st century would attempt to build such a horrifyingly irresponsible machine, geopolitics be damned. This thing is basically a dirty bomb on an unstoppable cruise missile. Any reactor powerful enough to drive a thing like that is going to make a big radioactive mess wherever it lands. There's no safe way to test it, either - you can use a dummy warhead, but you can't use a dummy reactor. Also, clearly such a thing must be air-cooled, which means the moment you have a launch failure, you have a meltdown on your hands (dollars to doughnuts something like that happened here). Just developing such a thing is going to cause a huge raft of nuclear incidents.
- tdxgx 7y ago
  Nuclear planes have already been built and tested. The problem is the shielding to keep the pilots from dying is too heavy. A cruise missile gets rid of the need for that.
  - dTal 7y ago
    Even if that were true, which as far as I can tell it isn't (both Soviet and US nuclear aircraft programs were canceled before any powered prototypes were made), aircraft at least are not meant to crash. All cruise missiles crash. Deliberately pulverizing a fueled-up nuclear reactor is not a nice thing to do. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the risk of crashing and making a mess was a factor in the cancellation of both programs.
    - bb611 7y ago
      Its job is to deliver a fission warhead without being intercepted by current or future antimissile defences, the dirty bomb inside is comparatively unimportant.
- macca321 7y ago
  Perhaps for the lower carbon output?
- situational87 7y ago
  I think that's sort of the point of most nuclear weapons, to inflict massive damage and spread radiation where they land. Kind of hard to put that genie back in the bottle now. The history of Russia and the United States shows they are not terribly concerned about casualties or making large sections of their homelands uninhabitable to further weapons development. Why would you expect that to change all of a sudden in 2019?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]