5 ms·

> Initiated in response to a Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act requirement, DAF’s Micro-Reactor Pilot Program seeks to build and operate at le

> Initiated in response to a Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act requirement, DAF’s Micro-Reactor Pilot Program seeks to build and operate at least one licensed microreactor by Dec. 31, 2027, that will deliver power and steam to a defense base under a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA). For those of you like me who got excited about the prospect of nuclear powered aircraft, the reactor is to power a base.

dylan604 3y ago
For 24/7/365/30 constant airborne capabilities? Seems overkill to say the least. Also, not sure too many people would be happy with a nuclear reactor flying overhead.
- hangonhn 3y ago
  Funnily enough, molten salt reactor were developed for this specific purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    With some very scary designs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
    - dmoy 3y ago
      > deliver them with greater accuracy than was possible with intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBMs) at the time and, unlike them, could be recalled. hold up, what Launch the nukes, abort the launch, and then have the nukes... fly back to base, and land safely without exploding. Right I get that there's fail-safes for the warheads, but that seems definitely scary, I agree
      - krisoft 3y ago
        No, I'm afraid you are mistaken what is scary about these. People have "launch the nuke, abort the nuke, fly back to base and land safely without exploding" already. That is called a nuclear armed bomber. The scary thing about these is that their propulsion is a nuclear reactor. You know how in a jet engine the air is heated up by burning fuel? Here the air is heated up by comming into contact with the reactor. They exhaust fission products while they fly. To quote from the page: "The other major problem with the SLAM concept was the environmental damage caused by radioactive emissions during flight, and the disposal of the reactor at the end of the mission. Merkle estimated that about 100 grams of fission products would be produced, which would be dispersed over a wide area." This thing is by design, when nothing goes wrong leaves a contrail of radioactive contamination behind it. And when things go wrong it leaves even more contamination. And the funny thing is, the Russians are still experimenting with this tech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik And predictably as they were trying to scope their test wreckage from the sea floor they managed to have a radiation incident with it in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident (As you can read the exact circumstances are disputed, but I believe this is the most likely explanation of what we have seen.)
      - dotnet00 3y ago
        The SLAM missile it was designed for was scarier than just that. It was to be able to fly supersonic close to the ground for months at end and could be modified to bleed radioactivity into the exhaust. So not only would it nuke several cities, it would then deafen, kill and/or radiation poison with its flyovers.
        NikkiA 3y ago
        When you absolutely must demonstrate how much 'the good guys' side you are.
        dylan604 3y ago
        when freedom is rained down, there are multiple forms of precipitation it can arrive
- cwp 3y ago
  Also, potentially bad outcomes if a nuclear aircraft is shot down.
- morugam 3y ago
  [dead]
- S201 3y ago
  > For 24/7/365/30 constant airborne capabilities? I'm not saying it's necessary (or even a good idea, see the "accidents" section in the linked to article), but it also wouldn't be the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chrome_Dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chrome_Dome
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > For 24/7/365/30 constant airborne capabilities? Probably for the ability to replace fossil fuels in an application where batteries don't have enough energy density. > Also, not sure too many people would be happy with a nuclear reactor flying overhead. Better not tell them the kinds of things in the cargo holds of existing planes.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mr337 3y ago
You may find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5gefU87TY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5gefU87TY (t 6:12). Sadly it didn't pan out.
abeppu 3y ago
They used the word 'pilot' in an ambiguous way, in the context of the Airforce, and then the first photo on the page is of an aircraft in flight. I think the editors _wanted_ you to momentarily think this was going to be an airborne reactor.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
You might be interested in: https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#cord https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#cor... Or, just using reactors in a more straightforward way: https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#fissionfragment https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#fi...

dylan604 3y ago

For 24/7/365/30 constant airborne capabilities? Seems overkill to say the least. Also, not sure too many people would be happy with a nuclear reactor flying overhead.

hangonhn 3y ago
Funnily enough, molten salt reactor were developed for this specific purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Reactor_Experiment
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  With some very scary designs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
  - dmoy 3y ago
    > deliver them with greater accuracy than was possible with intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBMs) at the time and, unlike them, could be recalled. hold up, what Launch the nukes, abort the launch, and then have the nukes... fly back to base, and land safely without exploding. Right I get that there's fail-safes for the warheads, but that seems definitely scary, I agree
    - krisoft 3y ago
      No, I'm afraid you are mistaken what is scary about these. People have "launch the nuke, abort the nuke, fly back to base and land safely without exploding" already. That is called a nuclear armed bomber. The scary thing about these is that their propulsion is a nuclear reactor. You know how in a jet engine the air is heated up by burning fuel? Here the air is heated up by comming into contact with the reactor. They exhaust fission products while they fly. To quote from the page: "The other major problem with the SLAM concept was the environmental damage caused by radioactive emissions during flight, and the disposal of the reactor at the end of the mission. Merkle estimated that about 100 grams of fission products would be produced, which would be dispersed over a wide area." This thing is by design, when nothing goes wrong leaves a contrail of radioactive contamination behind it. And when things go wrong it leaves even more contamination. And the funny thing is, the Russians are still experimenting with this tech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik And predictably as they were trying to scope their test wreckage from the sea floor they managed to have a radiation incident with it in 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident (As you can read the exact circumstances are disputed, but I believe this is the most likely explanation of what we have seen.)
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      The SLAM missile it was designed for was scarier than just that. It was to be able to fly supersonic close to the ground for months at end and could be modified to bleed radioactivity into the exhaust. So not only would it nuke several cities, it would then deafen, kill and/or radiation poison with its flyovers.
      - NikkiA 3y ago
        When you absolutely must demonstrate how much 'the good guys' side you are.
        dylan604 3y ago
        when freedom is rained down, there are multiple forms of precipitation it can arrive
cwp 3y ago
Also, potentially bad outcomes if a nuclear aircraft is shot down.
morugam 3y ago
[dead]
S201 3y ago
> For 24/7/365/30 constant airborne capabilities? I'm not saying it's necessary (or even a good idea, see the "accidents" section in the linked to article), but it also wouldn't be the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chrome_Dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chrome_Dome
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> For 24/7/365/30 constant airborne capabilities? Probably for the ability to replace fossil fuels in an application where batteries don't have enough energy density. > Also, not sure too many people would be happy with a nuclear reactor flying overhead. Better not tell them the kinds of things in the cargo holds of existing planes.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mr337 3y ago

You may find this interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5gefU87TY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5gefU87TY (t 6:12). Sadly it didn't pan out.

abeppu 3y ago

They used the word 'pilot' in an ambiguous way, in the context of the Airforce, and then the first photo on the page is of an aircraft in flight. I think the editors _wanted_ you to momentarily think this was going to be an airborne reactor.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

You might be interested in: https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#cord https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#cor... Or, just using reactors in a more straightforward way: https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#fissionfragment https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist2.php#fi...