3 ms·
If your goal is to use exciting power sources then those two have a flaw, they can be scaled down to fit the power needs of the plane, which would limit the spe
by the8472 7y ago
If your goal is to use exciting power sources then those two have a flaw, they can be scaled down to fit the power needs of the plane, which would limit the spectacle you could achieve.
The penrose process may be a better choice since there's a miniaturization limit.
- xyzzyz 7y agoYou can, in fact, put a functional nuclear reactor on a plane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95LAL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95LAL . Of course, it's a terrible idea, but it is feasible.
- m463 7y agoThe holy grail would be to put antimatter on a spaceship. Instead of the pyramid of fuel mass needed to escape a gravity well, the capsule would basically be constant mass. An antimatter-powered spaceship could conquer the solar system or even the universe.
- agumonkey 7y agoRussia sure does like mobile nuclear reactors
- m463 7y agoReading one of the Feynman books, probably "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" I remember the section about nuclear-powered patent ideas, like nuclear-powered spaceship, plane, boat, ... and submarine. We only did the boat and submarine. I guess we did the spaceship too.
- tim333 7y agoThey are still working on it for cruise missiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik