
Why Not Nuclear-Powered Aircraft? - wamatt
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/07/why_not_nuclear-powered_aircraft.html
======
bancock
Russians and the Americans tried after world war 2 but due to limitations of
technology they failed. There were 2 approaches tried 1) Direct drive approach
where weight was comparatively less but the radioactive gases were thrown as
exhaust hence was deemed unsafe. 2) Indirect drive (lockheed martin worked on
this) which drove the steam turbine which ran the rotors but thrust to weight
ratio was so less that it was shelved.

Meanwhile there was an internal competition between U.S. airforce and navy for
getting a nuclear fueled vehicle that would have unlimited range. This
competition ended when Navy got their 1st Nuclear powered submarine.

Also nuclear powered aircraft if crashed in enemy territory or in any other
place will attract serious consequences.

Hence NO Nuclear-Powered Aircraft!

------
jgeorge
I live near the site (AFP 67) where they were developing the nuclear powered
aircraft. The site currently is a fenced-off area in the middle of a National
Forest. There are still radiation detectors mounted here and there around the
area monitoring for who-knows-what since I don't think there are any materials
left there, and haven't been for decades. They filled the entrance to the
mostly-underground complex with concrete, there's not much to see above ground
(and not sure there ever was much in the first place).

