Nuclear ground-orbit vehicle

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by raniE

Do you think anyone would go for nuclear powered spaceplanes though? Or would the fear of catastrophic failure put a stop to any such plans?

Fission? Not going to happen. The requirement for radioactive power-plant (to heat the reaction mass) fuel kills the idea. Blowing up the fission-nuclear-plane spreads radioactive material all over the place.

Fusion? Maybe. My understanding is that a fusion device is 'safer', though I could easily be wrong. At the very least it's probable fuel (Hydrogen) is lighter-than-air and so won't be a fallout concern in case of plane destruction.

[raniE]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

Fission? Not going to happen. The requirement for radioactive power-plant (to heat the reaction mass) fuel kills the idea. Blowing up the fission-nuclear-plane spreads radioactive material all over the place.

Fusion? Maybe. My understanding is that a fusion device is 'safer', though I could easily be wrong. At the very least it's probable fuel (Hydrogen) is lighter-than-air and so won't be a fallout concern in case of plane destruction.

Fusion doesn't have enough thrust unfortunately. What if launch costs have been brought down by a large margin already, there are very few accidents in the atmosphere and this is touted as "the engine that will let everyone visit space"?

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by raniE

Fusion doesn't have enough thrust unfortunately. What if launch costs have been brought down by a large margin already, there are very few accidents in the atmosphere and this is touted as "the engine that will let everyone visit space"?

A single terrorist action destroying one and scattering nuclear waste over a large populated area ... and the manufacturers are going to get lynched. Not to mention all the lawsuits. :)

One accident is too many. One accident would kill the entire setup. (See the USA's reaction to having nuclear fission power plants after a few went boom for various reasons as an example.)

The only way you'll get nuclear-fission aircraft accepted is by using the military. And that'd be only for military use. You don't go handing out nuclear materials to the civilian population; especially not with people interested in making bombs from it.

[theshadow99]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

One accident is too many. One accident would kill the entire setup. (See the USA's reaction to having nuclear fission power plants after a few went boom for various reasons as an example.)

Really this was just one within the US that went critical (three mile island), a few others with issues, and Russia's Chernobyl disaster... Oddly I learned the other day that they don't even teach why the US has stagnated on nuclear energy for the last 30 years, when a 2nd year political science major asked me what I was talking about when I said that nuclear energy had stagnated in the US... Though this is a repeated problem, the Hindenburg ended Blimps for around 70 years. Both are things we've rethought in the last decade, slowly realizing they weren't so bad.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by theshadow99

the Hindenburg ended Blimps for around 70 years. Both are things we've rethought in the last decade, slowly realizing they weren't so bad.

The Hindenberg ended _rigid_ airships. Blimps (which are non-rigid) continued in niche applications largely unaffected.

Rigid airships show no particular sign of a comeback. Just more (pun intended) blue sky dreaming. The Moller skycar is more likely to become practical.

[theshadow99]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The Hindenberg ended _rigid_ airships. Blimps (which are non-rigid) continued in niche applications largely unaffected.

Rigid airships show no particular sign of a comeback. Just more (pun intended) blue sky dreaming. The Moller skycar is more likely to become practical.

Ok 'Airship', though most people (at least where I live) call it a blimp, hence my term... And their have been recent efforts to rebuild the idea... It's gone about as well as building new nuclear power plants after 40 years in the US (ie badly). I know of several companies which specialize in 'airships' though, the idea being they will become cargo and passenger carriers again. Whether or not it's likely to happen isn't for either of us to say... Which is also the same for nuclear power in the US, former opponents have turned around to support nuclear in the last 5 years even... That doesn't mean I think the average person won't throw a fuss...

In fact from personal experience a energy plant fueled by burning used tires causes less fuss than a nuclear plant. I can say that because near where I live just such a tire burning plant was setup... a block away from a school, and that's actually shown to have health effects to the nearby area! On the other hand the local power company suggested a nuclear plant within 20 miles and they had people practically with torches and mobs of protesters...

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

The only way you'll get nuclear-fission aircraft accepted is by using the military. And that'd be only for military use. You don't go handing out nuclear materials to the civilian population; especially not with people interested in making bombs from it.

Nuclear power plants are not military. Large aircraft are extremely dangerous devices routinely operated by civilians, too. If nuclear aerospace craft were operating at all, I don't see any reason that they'd be exclusively government-run.

[Langy]

Which is also the same for nuclear power in the US

Not anymore. It's looking very, very likely that we'll start building some new nuclear power plants rather soon. It's one of those Environmentalist/Get Ourselves Off Of Oil initiatives that politicos have been harping out for the past year or so.

[BMR]

Originally Posted by Langy

Not anymore. It's looking very, very likely that we'll start building some new nuclear power plants rather soon. It's one of those Environmentalist/Get Ourselves Off Of Oil initiatives that politicos have been harping out for the past year or so.

I agree with Langy. Especially when fuels like RP-1 start to become very expensive, due to being petroleum based, nuclear options will start to look more attractive. If players propose an Earth--just 20 or 30 years from now--where all of the feasible, easily accessible oil deposits have been drained, a time when the majority of our petrochemicals come from synthesized coal and oil shale or oil sand, NTRs may become much more popular.

However, they will indeed probably be limited to government spacecraft for a long time, before you get to a Fallout sort of society. Partly due to materials control, but also due to business considerations and conservatism. I would project civilians relying on hydrogen or enriched methane in advanced 1.5 to 2.5 stage rockets, and either suffering the penalty of cyrogenics, or coming up with a super dense nanomolecular tank that can compact hydrogen or methane gas into a small space.

[BMR]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Nuclear power plants are not military. Large aircraft are extremely dangerous devices routinely operated by civilians, too. If nuclear aerospace craft were operating at all, I don't see any reason that they'd be exclusively government-run.

I'd agree with this logic, but at the moment I think the US Air Force disagrees. I am amused by all of these SSTO and mini space shuttle projects that were publically developed by NASA, only to abruptly disappear under the cloak of the defense department.

One of the counterarguments to any sort of true space plane would be the threat of an arms race. The US already has a big problem with China reverse-engineering our weaponry. We've had stealth technology compromised in the Balkans and Tomahawk missile tech compromised in Afghanistan. The Kilo-class submarine uses stolen American engineering. This is a cost of deploying any sort of system in the light of day, but I get the impression that elements of our government want to have their cake and eat it too. When faced with rival nations that could duplicate a space plane effort, some minds might argue that we should make the process and deployment as mysterious as possible, at least until we can be assured of having a long-term edge.

I suspect that some congresspersons and generals consider a space plane to be even more dangerous than an ICBM, due to the tactical and strategic potential of such as system. This is apart from the issue of nuclear thrust.