43 thoughts on “A Fleet of Nuclear Flying Aircraft Carriers? – Nuclear Engineer Reacts to Found and Explained”
Thanks so much for watching! If you want to see another attempt at a flying nuclear reactor that made it to the testing phase, please check out: https://youtu.be/eofzAFK4B2Q?si=QzpToacY608n5Lbb
reacting to videos on fictional shit that was never manufactured is dumb as fuck. youtubers reacting to other youtube videos is dumb as shit. you arent creating content reviewing someone elses. cant critique shit that never existed.
I know this is an extreme hypothetical, but I believe the scrubbed version is the only likely one to ever have been conceptually attempted and that is a blow through reactor with zero regards for safety. Mostly because of the cold war and the utter contempt we seemed to have for safety at the time, even more so with those in seats of power during that era.
32:40 one of my favorites is in Terry Pratchets Diskworld, there is The Chair of Indefinite Studies. he is always happy when there is definitly a problem, because then thats a different department
Yeah, people have a different opinion of nuclear power today. However, the DOD and/or politicians will often 'ask for the moon' for something without understanding the technology behind it. This is the case regardless of whether something is nuclear or not. Hell, sometimes CEOs are like that, too. On a side note, how many airports would have a runway big enough for this thing? Maybe they'll mention that….
12:35: Sorry, but no. Not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier. Also, military members have shifts, too. Even though they can't leave a ship, no one expects them to work 24/7. They have galleys and living spaces (with bunks) for a reason. FYI.
With these crazy designs it's probably worth considering that the impracticality is much easier to convey to politicians and generals if you have an actual example. "Why can't we have a flying nuclear reactor?" "Well… Okay imagine we had one- You'd gain a mobile air base… But these would be the problems."
I can see that taking off in a conventional take of roll ( albeit using a huge length of runway), what I have a harder time with is seeing it getting below a sane MALW ( Maximum All up Landing Weight). After all, this bird would hardly be able to dump the reactor the same way many aircraft dump fuel if they need to force their weight down in an emergency. The results could well be, um, energetic
Even a submarine carrier makes more sense, that was actually tested by the Japanese in World War 2. It wasn't good.
A similar design that COULD be feasible would be a bigger version of one of those air command planes with radar and command stations plus drone operator stations and a small swarm of anti-air drones attached to the aircraft. It wouldn't be THIS big but still pretty darn big, I would say it still wouldn't need a nuclear reactor since you can refuel mid-air.
This drone carrier could be not just feasible but very effective when it comes to airspace defense by having this behemoth cruising around detecting missiles and enemy aircraft and then sending out the AA drone swarm to intercept. Interception time as well as command efficiency would be significantly improved and overall response time and capability would be way better than currently.
I suspect the various spooky military organizations of the world are already working on this. I mean just imagine, this could cut down several minutes of response time. I'd say in a few years when they figure out jet powered supersonic drones which have a good connection still with minimal lag, this will go into development.
Reactor Propulsion 02 oboard the Truman (CVN75) from 2002-2008 when deployed we had sunday "Holiday Routine" where we did not have work day, training, nor drills, but watches are manned 24/7/365. The plants are NEVER empty even when full shut down (cold iron). The pain of watch rotation was proportional to the number of qualified operators for each station. The worst I experienced was 5/10; five on, ten off, but those off hours are filled with work day/scheduled maintenance, training, and drills if you were the off going shift. Squeeze into that meal time (when you weren't on a watch), personal hygiene, and if there was any time left; sleep. The best rotation I ever saw was 5/20, but typically 5/15.
TMI did have radiological release, as radioactive iodine and noble gasses were vented from the reactor / containment. There was a low "average" dose calculated for the neighborhood (14 μSv / "half a chest x-ray"), but since nothing disperses perfectly homogenous it is more than likely that some people (like downwind) revceived substantially higher doses.
I find it funny that the one thing you say is the most plausible, the point defense laser, has never had a working installed prototype, and the nuclear aircraft engine has 2 working prototypes (three if you count the Russian one.) Do a search for HTRE-2 and HTRE-3, I find it fascinating how far along both projects got, all the while ignoring (at the time) current problems. Such as, the aircraft flight times were already limited by engine oil consumption, not crew rest or fuel (you can pack a bunch of food, and in flight refueling was already a thing.)
So for reference, the nuclear powered aircraft idea actually didn't solve any problems that were not already solved, just invented a whole host of new absolute nightmares.
This was a great channel suggestion! Another channel I would highly recommend is Cool Worlds. That channel is run by an astrophysics lab at Columbia University and it talks about a variety of scientific topics, including that lab's research. I would particularly recommend starting with the videos on the Terrascope and the Jovoscope, as well as the one on engineering the sun.
The late 50s/early 60s were full of wacky military ideas, many of them nuclear one way or another, including nuclear-powered aircraft. Designing this in 1969 was a bit late to that party, but I guess these ideas can happen any time.
As far as barely-remembered nuclear accidents go, there was also the Army's reactor accident with 3 dead (all the crew at the plant) at the Idaho National Engineering Lab in 1961. The reactor was the SL-1. It was quite gruesome. The rods were manually operated by personnel standing on top of the shielded reactor vessel. A rod got stuck, an operator gave it a heave, and it was rapidly pulled up too far. The resulting steam explosion due to prompt criticality literally bounced the reactor vessel off the overhead and impaled another operator, killing him. One of the others died immediately from steam burns/suffocation, and the third died within a few hours.
1. The Soviet Union wasn't communistic (that would meant that they would have no powerhierarchy at the very least – what was obviously not the case).
2. The idea alone, that communist states would attack the USA – for what? The reason why the west tries to conquer Russia over and over again is that it is the richest country on this plaent by far with 75.000.000.000.000$ in raw resource reserves. USA is second place (by large distance already) – but over 90% of that is coal and timber. There would simply be no interest for anyone to conquer the USA (and even less Europe, which is batshit poor).
Thanks so much for watching! If you want to see another attempt at a flying nuclear reactor that made it to the testing phase, please check out: https://youtu.be/eofzAFK4B2Q?si=QzpToacY608n5Lbb
Engineer 1: Okay, how do we make this more insane?
Engineer 2: How about VTOL?
Nuclear engine was created and tested in a ground mount.
Always a good idea when calling a nuclear coolant loop a ‘loop’ is being generous
Also I still can’t believe MSRs were developed for this project!
I can only see this thing taking off with solid rocket assistance.
"The force cannot invade and take over China."
That would have required the far larger and even more classified 2100 series to be built.
I think maybe they ate just figuring tgat if the enemy shoots it down while over their territory, they can deal with the resulting hazzard.
Do people understand what happens if hot liquid Sodium comes into contact with air or water?
reacting to videos on fictional shit that was never manufactured is dumb as fuck. youtubers reacting to other youtube videos is dumb as shit. you arent creating content reviewing someone elses. cant critique shit that never existed.
When going full hitler super weapon crazy, they may have well made it a low earth orbit space station air port
I know this is an extreme hypothetical, but I believe the scrubbed version is the only likely one to ever have been conceptually attempted and that is a blow through reactor with zero regards for safety. Mostly because of the cold war and the utter contempt we seemed to have for safety at the time, even more so with those in seats of power during that era.
The design specifications of the CL-1201 were
Wingspan: 1,120 feet
Gross weight: 5375 metric tonnes
Endurance: 41 days
Reactor output: 1830 megawatts
Crew: 575
Main engines: 4 (GE90 equivalents)
They should have gone full hog and chucked a micro black hole reactor in there 😂
32:40 one of my favorites is in Terry Pratchets Diskworld, there is The Chair of Indefinite Studies. he is always happy when there is definitly a problem, because then thats a different department
33:25 there is, its called "sly hotell" its a flying nucleared cruise ship. duno any specific videos though
Am F-MEE issue? Sounds fitting
Would love to see your thoughts on Scott Manley 'USA Put A Nuclear Reactor In Space And Abandoned It – How Did It Work?' video.
Yeah, people have a different opinion of nuclear power today. However, the DOD and/or politicians will often 'ask for the moon' for something without understanding the technology behind it. This is the case regardless of whether something is nuclear or not. Hell, sometimes CEOs are like that, too. On a side note, how many airports would have a runway big enough for this thing? Maybe they'll mention that….
12:35: Sorry, but no. Not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier. Also, military members have shifts, too. Even though they can't leave a ship, no one expects them to work 24/7. They have galleys and living spaces (with bunks) for a reason. FYI.
With these crazy designs it's probably worth considering that the impracticality is much easier to convey to politicians and generals if you have an actual example. "Why can't we have a flying nuclear reactor?" "Well… Okay imagine we had one- You'd gain a mobile air base… But these would be the problems."
We had flying nuclear reactors in the c36
I can see that taking off in a conventional take of roll ( albeit using a huge length of runway), what I have a harder time with is seeing it getting below a sane MALW ( Maximum All up Landing Weight). After all, this bird would hardly be able to dump the reactor the same way many aircraft dump fuel if they need to force their weight down in an emergency. The results could well be, um, energetic
Even a submarine carrier makes more sense, that was actually tested by the Japanese in World War 2. It wasn't good.
A similar design that COULD be feasible would be a bigger version of one of those air command planes with radar and command stations plus drone operator stations and a small swarm of anti-air drones attached to the aircraft. It wouldn't be THIS big but still pretty darn big, I would say it still wouldn't need a nuclear reactor since you can refuel mid-air.
This drone carrier could be not just feasible but very effective when it comes to airspace defense by having this behemoth cruising around detecting missiles and enemy aircraft and then sending out the AA drone swarm to intercept. Interception time as well as command efficiency would be significantly improved and overall response time and capability would be way better than currently.
I suspect the various spooky military organizations of the world are already working on this. I mean just imagine, this could cut down several minutes of response time. I'd say in a few years when they figure out jet powered supersonic drones which have a good connection still with minimal lag, this will go into development.
This seems like a really bad idea for the same reasons as sending nuclear waste into space
Canada going full communist, what a crazy idea.
The "jigawatt" killed me 🤣great video as usual!
Reactor Propulsion 02 oboard the Truman (CVN75) from 2002-2008 when deployed we had sunday "Holiday Routine" where we did not have work day, training, nor drills, but watches are manned 24/7/365. The plants are NEVER empty even when full shut down (cold iron). The pain of watch rotation was proportional to the number of qualified operators for each station. The worst I experienced was 5/10; five on, ten off, but those off hours are filled with work day/scheduled maintenance, training, and drills if you were the off going shift. Squeeze into that meal time (when you weren't on a watch), personal hygiene, and if there was any time left; sleep. The best rotation I ever saw was 5/20, but typically 5/15.
TMI did have radiological release, as radioactive iodine and noble gasses were vented from the reactor / containment. There was a low "average" dose calculated for the neighborhood (14 μSv / "half a chest x-ray"), but since nothing disperses perfectly homogenous it is more than likely that some people (like downwind) revceived substantially higher doses.
I find it funny that the one thing you say is the most plausible, the point defense laser, has never had a working installed prototype, and the nuclear aircraft engine has 2 working prototypes (three if you count the Russian one.) Do a search for HTRE-2 and HTRE-3, I find it fascinating how far along both projects got, all the while ignoring (at the time) current problems. Such as, the aircraft flight times were already limited by engine oil consumption, not crew rest or fuel (you can pack a bunch of food, and in flight refueling was already a thing.)
So for reference, the nuclear powered aircraft idea actually didn't solve any problems that were not already solved, just invented a whole host of new absolute nightmares.
React to the Scott manly video on nuclear space propulsion that he just posted. I'd love to see your thoughts.
This was a great channel suggestion! Another channel I would highly recommend is Cool Worlds. That channel is run by an astrophysics lab at Columbia University and it talks about a variety of scientific topics, including that lab's research. I would particularly recommend starting with the videos on the Terrascope and the Jovoscope, as well as the one on engineering the sun.
Makes me think of "Anything will fly, if you push hard enough."
You should definetely watch new Scott Manley's video about nuclear rockets!
physicist/astronomer Scott Manley just released a video on nuclear rocket engines, you might enjoy reacting to that.
day 6
could you review the last week tonight episode about nuclear waste please?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU
Warch "The Fat Electrician'" video on the Thunderscreach.
The problem with airborne lasers for point defense would be using late 1960s era computers to target the inbound missiles.
oh my gosh there's no way someone didn't name that protocol "F-me" on purpose….
The late 50s/early 60s were full of wacky military ideas, many of them nuclear one way or another, including nuclear-powered aircraft. Designing this in 1969 was a bit late to that party, but I guess these ideas can happen any time.
As far as barely-remembered nuclear accidents go, there was also the Army's reactor accident with 3 dead (all the crew at the plant) at the Idaho National Engineering Lab in 1961. The reactor was the SL-1. It was quite gruesome. The rods were manually operated by personnel standing on top of the shielded reactor vessel. A rod got stuck, an operator gave it a heave, and it was rapidly pulled up too far. The resulting steam explosion due to prompt criticality literally bounced the reactor vessel off the overhead and impaled another operator, killing him. One of the others died immediately from steam burns/suffocation, and the third died within a few hours.
He's an Aussie. He's doing the "Jigawatts" thing intentionally.
The reactor shutdown cockpit warning light will need some memory items.
1. The Soviet Union wasn't communistic (that would meant that they would have no powerhierarchy at the very least – what was obviously not the case).
2. The idea alone, that communist states would attack the USA – for what? The reason why the west tries to conquer Russia over and over again is that it is the richest country on this plaent by far with 75.000.000.000.000$ in raw resource reserves. USA is second place (by large distance already) – but over 90% of that is coal and timber. There would simply be no interest for anyone to conquer the USA (and even less Europe, which is batshit poor).