TIL: the US operated a nuclear reactor on an airplane (though it wasn't used to power the flight).
-
TIL: the US operated a nuclear reactor on an airplane (though it wasn't used to power the flight).
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
@bascule We also lost a nuclear device in the Himalayas once https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/13/world/asia/cia-nuclear-device-himalayas-nanda-devi.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8k8.1hnc.vpE1wK34nMTE&smid=url-share
-
TIL: the US operated a nuclear reactor on an airplane (though it wasn't used to power the flight).
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
@bascule One of the great historical monuments to human hubris & stupidity
-
TIL: the US operated a nuclear reactor on an airplane (though it wasn't used to power the flight).
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
@bascule Of the ten engines on the B-36, they said the status was "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking and two more unaccounted for"
-
TIL: the US operated a nuclear reactor on an airplane (though it wasn't used to power the flight).
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
@bascule are they on the list of broken arrows? that happened with numerous Bx - the list which was unearthed only when some journos started digging the threads together ? or those megatonne ones with B52's arsenal that was in continuous triad rotation.. https://www.twz.com/air/americas-first-broken-arrow-incident-happed-75-years-ago
-
TIL: the US operated a nuclear reactor on an airplane (though it wasn't used to power the flight).
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
What’s really funny is Trump is pushing nuclear power hard and the Air Force is putting out press releases about carrying a non-operational 250kW reactor on a C-17 Globemaster as if it’s some kind of unprecedented historic first.
Did you all forget when you *operated* a reactor four times as powerful on a plane? Nearly three quarters of a century ago back in 1955?
World's first: US Air Force deploys portable nuclear power station [video]
For the first time, a US Air Force C-17 Globemaster III has airlifted a complete, 5 MW nuclear reactor and reassembled i.
Electrek (electrek.co)
-
What’s really funny is Trump is pushing nuclear power hard and the Air Force is putting out press releases about carrying a non-operational 250kW reactor on a C-17 Globemaster as if it’s some kind of unprecedented historic first.
Did you all forget when you *operated* a reactor four times as powerful on a plane? Nearly three quarters of a century ago back in 1955?
World's first: US Air Force deploys portable nuclear power station [video]
For the first time, a US Air Force C-17 Globemaster III has airlifted a complete, 5 MW nuclear reactor and reassembled i.
Electrek (electrek.co)
There’s a reason we stopped putting nuclear reactors on airplanes and it has nothing to do with technological limitations.
-
There’s a reason we stopped putting nuclear reactors on airplanes and it has nothing to do with technological limitations.
@bascule we just don’t vision hard enough.
-
There’s a reason we stopped putting nuclear reactors on airplanes and it has nothing to do with technological limitations.
@bascule Alexander the ok had some thoughts on that too - turns out there might well have been technological limitations of the weighty variety. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyUxnwD5xhY
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
@bascule Alexander the ok had some thoughts on that too - turns out there might well have been technological limitations of the weighty variety. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyUxnwD5xhY
@brad I’m not going to watch a video right now, but did you see the full context of this thread?
-
@brad I’m not going to watch a video right now, but did you see the full context of this thread?
@bascule Yep - the bit about the reactor is towards the end of the video. Including his musings on getting the power out of the reactor and turning it into thrust, weight issues with shielding, the downsides to spraying radioactive exhaust everywhere (depending on propulsion method chosen), and what was that other thing...
Oh yes, crashing. How that would be both bad and relatively likely.
-
@bascule Yep - the bit about the reactor is towards the end of the video. Including his musings on getting the power out of the reactor and turning it into thrust, weight issues with shielding, the downsides to spraying radioactive exhaust everywhere (depending on propulsion method chosen), and what was that other thing...
Oh yes, crashing. How that would be both bad and relatively likely.
@brad aah, well the *other* context of this thread is the recent Air Force press releases about transporting inactive SMRs on airplanes, which… also seems like a bad idea
-
@brad aah, well the *other* context of this thread is the recent Air Force press releases about transporting inactive SMRs on airplanes, which… also seems like a bad idea
@bascule To be fair, if they aren't fuelled then it's just shipping building materials around. SMRs are pretty big, aren't they, despite the name? Like the size of a house, instead of the size of a housing estate for normal reactors. Surely they couldn't fly them around fully-assembled?
