A Nuclear tech question

This:


is an image of two j87 jet engines that were suppesed to be powered by a single nuclear reactore. The system is also known as the x-211

By this time, GE's engine concepts had moved on to a system known as the "X-211", which consisted of two "XJ87" turbojets sharing a single reactor core. The XJ87 was a huge engine, 12.5 meters (41 feet) long, and GE had managed to bench-test a single XJ87 to demonstrate that it could provide 121.8 kN (12,410 kgp / 27,370 kgp) thrust. The X-211 / XJ87 went down the drain with ANP.

www.vectorsite.net...

So does this means that they were actually tested with a reactor powering them and is that reactor to be seen on the pic I provided(note my input to the image)?

PS: hope someone can answer or maybe someone of you even have more pics of that machine

[edit on 30-10-2004 by vorazechul]

would there be any radioactive residual traces left in the atmosphere from such a reactor driven jet?

this was to be an open cycle (the air had to go through the reactor to be heated) so yeas, therewould be a lots of traces
The closed cycle was "clean" though but I think such an engine was never developed

The U.S. did test an nuclear powered cruise missle back in the 50's / 60's. Called project Pluto, it got as far as reactor testing. I started a thread a while back here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

so i don't know much about these things, but damn i don't want airplanes flying over my house if they are powered by nuclear reactors...and what about plane crashes...talk about a bad idea man....nuclear powered submarines are cool, they are slow and in the ocean...what's gonna happen, they sink to the bottom or something, but a plane ....well we all know what a plane can do....BOOM

Originally posted by FredT
The U.S. did test an nuclear powered cruise missle back in the 50's / 60's. Called project Pluto, it got as far as reactor testing. I started a thread a while back here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

thanx for the link/s but i'm aware of the PlUTO and NERVA projects
I was asking about that particular engine - the j87

Originally posted by SomewhereInChina
so i don't know much about these things, but damn i don't want airplanes flying over my house if they are powered by nuclear reactors...and what about plane crashes...talk about a bad idea man....nuclear powered submarines are cool, they are slow and in the ocean...what's gonna happen, they sink to the bottom or something, but a plane ....well we all know what a plane can do....BOOM

The US has developed nuclear reactors for use with satelites that have a protective containment system that can survive a complete reentry, indeed there were several times where nuclear powered satellites have failed to achieve orbit, the ractors have been recovered and reused.

For example, the RTG powered Nimbus-B1 weather satellite was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in may 1968. The craft failed to achieve orbit and crashed into the sea and was later recovered and the reactor reused.

The Apollo 13 LEM contained a plutonium powered RTG reactor, which was not recovered as it fell into the Tonga Trench, but samples taken show no radiation release.

I wonder if there is someone that can answer to my qestions so pleaze don't spam "my" topic

i changed the pic so you can see what i mean by asking if the reactor is to be seen

Ok, doing some asking around and as far as I can tell: Yes. They were tested with a nuclear reactor, but never flown. And in all probability, what you have pictured there is the reactor itself.

[edit on 30/10/2004 by RichardPrice]

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Ok, doing some asking around and as far as I can tell: Yes. They were tested with a nuclear reactor, but never flown. And in all probability, what you have pictured there is the reactor itself.

[edit on 30/10/2004 by RichardPrice]

Thanx, Richard

well the nuclear reactor would be the ultimate sore losers option.
the plane exsplodes the nuclear reactor goes onto meltdown.
can you see a new generation of suicide missions?

Originally posted by devilwasp
well the nuclear reactor would be the ultimate sore losers option.
the plane exsplodes the nuclear reactor goes onto meltdown.
can you see a new generation of suicide missions?

Uhm, in a word: No. Modern reactors would use whats called the pebble bed design. The reactions in this design of reactor are limited by pure physics, because if the reaction gets too much, heat is generated which causes the fuel pebbles to expand, and exceed the optimum size for reactions. This then stops the runaway reaction, allowing it to cool down until it gets back to the optimum size of pebble, and starts generating heat again.

This design is perfectly safe, theres no way for this reactor to go supercritical and into meltdown. Coupled with a military grade reactor vessle as used on satellites, there is very little chance of one of these being a problem in any crash etc.

i was meaning if the pilot KNEW he was going to die.

Originally posted by devilwasp
i was meaning if the pilot KNEW he was going to die.

Still doesnt matter. The containment vessel would do its job in the event of a forced crash, and you just cant make a reactor go BOOOOOOM, they arent built to do that. You cant produce electricity from a nuclear bomb, and you cant produce a bomb from a nuclear reactor. You can reprocess the fuel to move between the two uses, but you cant build one and make it do the other.

Chernobyl happened because the reactor core got so hot the cooling rods caught fire, building the pressure in the core and blowing the lid off. 99% of the radiation released in that event was due to the fire, but just chucking the core elements around, as in a crash, wont actually produce much of a disaster area, as the radioactive chunks can be swiftly identified and removed.

Fly around with one of those designs of reactor, and you are asking for trouble anyway. And forcing it to go into meltdown is actually pretty hard and unpredictable, the pilot could go up miles from his target, or not go up at all.

modern reators can be made and are being made safe as a simple combustion engine or even more.
While the majority of chemical engines use polutive substanses (ARIANE 5's rocket engins for example) they are beeing used without any regards to the polution that may result in an accident. The loss of radioactive materials is very regretfull but does not pose such a permanent threat as many may think infact it does not pose a bigger threat than an oiltanker crash. With a meltdown allmost impessible and a crash resulting only in some mere scraches on the reactore's enclosure u can feel perfectly relaxed when a nuce plane (with a closed cycleengine) flyes over your head.

[edit on 1-11-2004 by vorazechul]

just to add - the engine was designed for the Convair NX-2 aircraft.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
The US has developed nuclear reactors for use with satelites that have a protective containment system that can survive a complete reentry, indeed there were several times where nuclear powered satellites have failed to achieve orbit, the ractors have been recovered and reused.

For example, the RTG powered Nimbus-B1 weather satellite...

RTG is entirely different thing.

Radio (isotopic) Thermal Generators make electricity from heat released by normal spontaneous decaying of radioactive material.
Unlike nuclear reactor they don't have any moving parts which enables making them simple and sturdy.