Rethinking Nuclear Submarines as Spaceships

originally posted by: Aliensun
As an experimental unit, the reactor was hung under the belly of the B-36. It provided no power for propelling the plane. It was for demo purposes and perhaps a PR show more than anything. The Air Force gave up the effort after two flights of that contraption.

Where exactly are you getting your "facts" from?

The NB-36H completed 47 test flights and 215 hours of flight time (during 89 of which the reactor was operated) between September 17, 1955, and March 1957[5] over New Mexico and Texas

fas.org...

a reply to: Aliensun

Wouldn't a purpose built space ship be a better space ship?

You are watching too much anime, perhaps?

a reply to: chr0naut
Indeed.
A submarine is far heavier than a spaceship need be.
Also slower.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
Indeed.
A submarine is far heavier than a spaceship need be.
Also slower.

But weight matters not a lot in space, yeh it takes a while to get it moving, but then it just keeps moving.

As for getting a sling shot from a planet, would a heavier craft benefit more than a lighter craft? Just wondering

a reply to: VoidHawk

As for getting a sling shot from a planet, would a heavier craft benefit more than a lighter craft? Just wondering

No.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VoidHawk

As for getting a sling shot from a planet, would a heavier craft benefit more than a lighter craft? Just wondering

No.

Ok I've been thinking about the sling shot for a while now and as your the go-to man for this stuff I'll ask another question.
When something uses a planet for a sling shot, does it steal momentum from the planet?

a reply to: VoidHawk
Yes.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Aliensun
As an experimental unit, the reactor was hung under the belly of the B-36. It provided no power for propelling the plane. It was for demo purposes and perhaps a PR show more than anything. The Air Force gave up the effort after two flights of that contraption.

Where exactly are you getting your "facts" from?

The NB-36H completed 47 test flights and 215 hours of flight time (during 89 of which the reactor was operated) between September 17, 1955, and March 1957[5] over New Mexico and Texas

fas.org...

Where are you getting YOUR facts from ?

Unlike the planned Convair X-6, the three-megawatt air-cooled reactor in the NB-36H did not power any of the aircraft's systems, nor did it provide propulsion, but was placed on the NB-36H to measure the effectiveness of the shielding.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

The 3 megawatt, air-cooled nuclear reactor did not end up providing propulsion for the aircraft, as the program was cancelled owing to budget cuts. Indeed, at that stage the project had only verified that it was possible to successfully carry and run a nuclear reactor in the air. Another reason behind the cancellation of the aircraft and the NPA program itself was the fact that jet engines began to have longer ranges and were more reliable.

The Convair NB-36H was actually a highly modified version of the Convair B-36 strategic bomber. The original crew and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead-lined crew section for the pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers, with a structural mass of 11 tonnes. Propulsion was supplied by six Pratt & Whitney propeller engines and four GE J47 jet engines.

Radiation exposure posed a wealth of challenges. To protect the flight crew from radiation exposure, the nose section of the aircraft was modified to include a 12-tonne shield made of lead and rubber. The task of engine scanning, normally performed by crew members, was undertaken with the use of video cameras.

The Soviet Union conducted similar research, but neither country created any operational nuclear-powered aircraft. The soviet-made Tupolev Tu-119 (which was based on the Tupolev Tu-95 bomber) completed 34 research flights, however most of them were performed with the reactor disengaged.

www.aerotime.aero...



I would like to Add that i went though your link and nowhere did i find info contrary to the wiki that i posted . You however took that quote from the Convair x-6 page .

a reply to: Aliensun

Nuclear fission reactors need to be cooled. Very seriously cooled or you get thermal runway and meltdown and everybody dead. Underwater, there's plenty of material around you for heat exchanging.

But In space?

Subs, even with magic anti-gravity drive (where would you fit it in?), would have to dump heat through large radiative fins in space, it's a huge problem without conduction and convection with a cool medium.

It's really ridiculous.

McKinnon said that he read something about "non-terrestrial officers". People immediately think "star trek". But remember, it's military bureaucracy. That could be somebody's way of saying "officers assigned to ships, boats and aircraft and not flying a desk".

And it could just be a plain honeypot, with fake names on fake ships. Capt. Dirk Diggler transfers with 100 Able Seamen to the SSGN Stonewall.

Probably some Army intern making it all up.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
Indeed.
A submarine is far heavier than a spaceship need be.
Also slower.

But weight matters not a lot in space, yeh it takes a while to get it moving, but then it just keeps moving.

As for getting a sling shot from a planet, would a heavier craft benefit more than a lighter craft? Just wondering

Mass is the enemy of fast travel because E = Mc^2.

The greater the mass, the more enormous the amount of energy required. Its not a simple 1:1 balance, small mass increases mean vast energy increases.

a reply to: Aliensun

I was planning to do a thread on the USS Trepang "incident," but that is on hold for the moment, but I decided to add a tidbit that is relative to my case in this thread. If you study the images of the mysterious object, you will see dark smoke. You will also see many times over the volume of the smoke a large white cloud that covers a very large area around the stricken craft and it even extents down to cover the sea.

That material I believe is steam released by a ruptured high-pressure steam system of a nuclear reactor onboard that craft. If that be the case, then we most certainly did get submarine-type of craft aloft with nuclear engines at an early age.

120m long suppository

_www.youtube.com...