America's Lone "Nuclear-Powered" Bomber: Convair NB-36H

Рет қаралды 9,456

9 ай бұрын

In this video, we talk about the closest the American military came to having a nuclear-powered aircraft, the Convair NB-36H. We talk about the origins of the program back in the 40's with testing on nuclear engines. We also discuss the primary purpose of the NB-36H in how it tested the feasibility of having a nuclear reactor on an aircraft. We then talk about how the project aimed to advance into a fully nuclear-powered aircraft and how that aim never came to fruition.

Пікірлер: 51

@lancerevell5979 9 ай бұрын

In the 1950s a model company even marketed a scale model using actual radioactive material! It was quickly banned and taken off the market.

@cnfuzz 9 ай бұрын

Every glow in the dark toy was radioactive , most of the women that painted glowing dials onto Swiss watches in the 50's 60s died from radioactive poisoning from licking the brushes

@captainsensiblejr. 5 ай бұрын

No that was not an aeroplane model, that was a toy nuclear.reactor

@Placeholderdo3 Ай бұрын

@@cnfuzzyeah. The radium girls. Really sad story

@pseudotasuki 9 ай бұрын

The indirect concepts had an additional advantage: the reactor and engines were effectively decoupled from each other. The reactor would still be in the fuselage, but an assortment of engines could be located almost anywhere simply by running a coolant loop there. That's particularly important when the lack of fuel tanks would place more stress on the wing roots.

@restitvtororbis5330 9 ай бұрын

I agree that nuclear powered flight is as probably an order of magnitude more hazardous than it is cool (and it is pretty cool) but i don't think ALL forms of nuclear powered transportation should be written off. A very significant percentage of fossil fuel use goes into maritime shipping, and large cargo ships are easily the most logical next step for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy. There have been nuclear powered carriers and submarines for decades, and there has already been a civilian cargo ship made with nuclear power decades ago as well (I forgot the name, but Mustard made a doc on it) and the only reason it didn't catch on was because ports would deny entry because of concern over the nuclear reactor. It has been about half a century since maritime nuclear power became a thing and the technology is likely mature enough to make it safe enough to attempt again

@lancerevell5979 9 ай бұрын

The NS Savanah, in service for a few years. Too small to be profitable, it carried cargo and passengers. It was tied up in Charleston Harbor, SC. for many years. I saw it back in the early 1980s when my Navy ship was in Charleston Navy Base for overhaul. I think it has been moved elsewhere now though. A graceful and beautiful ship in her time. Soviet Russia operated a nuclear powered icebreaker ship too. Don't know if it is still in service.

@robertoroberto9798 9 ай бұрын

@@lancerevell5979Russia still operates a few (About 5) Nuclear Icebreakers. The NS Savannah unfortunately was small and tried to do too many things at once. If she was 1000 feet and a dedicated cargo ship, then she probably would’ve have much better success.

@burtbacarach5034 9 ай бұрын

Having worked in the Maritime industry,you REALLY don't want some overworked or worse,lazy,engineer maintaining a nuclear reactor.A lotof em can't even load fuel oil without a spill.

@robertoroberto9798 9 ай бұрын

@@burtbacarach5034 Considering how the US Navy has had almost 100 Nuclear Submarines and more than a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers with largely no accidents ever happening to them (Only the USS Thresher and Scorpion sunk, but even then, radioactivity from them is minimal because water is an extremely great shield and they sunk more than 50 years ago anyways), I doubt any nuclear accident would be possible with a trained crew. If you want to be extra careful you can have US Navy Nuclear Specialists/Engineers onboard as part of the crew to check for any problems.

@smallmoneysalvia 8 ай бұрын

I’ve always wondered why there aren’t nuclear tugboats - ships that can tow cargo ships across the majority of the route to just outside ports where the cargo ships detach and enter the port under conventional or electric power

@cnfuzz 9 ай бұрын

This was nothing compared to project Pluto , a nuclear powered ramjet from the early 60s that had the duty to make everything radioactive in it's trajectory

@pleaseenteranamelol711 8 ай бұрын

That was explicitly intended to be a doomsday weapon. Not really a fair comparison

@cnfuzz 6 ай бұрын

@pleaseenteranamelol711 the nb36 was develloped as a 24 hour airborne platform to deliver payload asap , a task that was carried over to aireal refuelling and around the clock airborne b52's , the mission was destruction but even the b52's had to many mishaps to carry this strategy on.

@JO-ch3el 9 ай бұрын

I would say it's ONLY because of unwarranted fear and lack of understanding that is keeping nuclear energy from being more widely adopted. Storage of spent fuel is a non-issue when you factor in all the benefits. The world is burning and we need a solution today and not in 50 years. Sorry for going off topic but it's something I feel very strongly about.

@greyfox79007 9 ай бұрын

Clean up Chernobyl and Fukushima and I am all for nuclear power, not one second before.

@nektulosnewbie 29 күн бұрын

A late someone I knew in the defence industry was furious at Kennedy after Fukushima happened. They were encountering radioaction phenomenon there previously unknown and unthought of that he felt would have been discovered and properly studied had the Test Ban not completely halted most major attempts at learning the environmental effects of radiation.

@Placeholderdo3 Ай бұрын

Cool idea in theory. Another problem i could see would be the amount of maintenance involved in keeping a plane airworthy would be impossible while the plane is still flying, thus limiting the time it could stay flying.

@vipertwenty249 9 ай бұрын

Excellent video but you missed out a very important part of the story - you might even be unaware of it: During the latter part of the project an entirely new technology was being developed to bypass the dangers of uranium reactors - Thorium reactors. The Thorium reactor can, unlike a Uranium reactor, be made to be fail-safe. This technology had reached a fairly advanced stage of development when the whole project was cancelled, ending thorium reactor research along with it. Thorium reactors are totally useless for nuclear weapons because they cannot make the necessary U235 and Plutonium needed for weapons and the civilian potential was completely overlooked. India and China are now taking the lead in this technology and China *will* gain enormous worldwide influence as a result - something the free world really doesn't want. Not only a missed opportunity at the time but an opportunity that still to this day continues to be overlooked. China's gain, the US's loss.

@MajikPPMan Ай бұрын

Can't help but think what the world of travel would be like today if they had of kept working on this technology. Great video though so thank you!

@OgreOnSprue 9 ай бұрын

Yeah New Vegas is definitely the one to go with

@makschorney2514 9 ай бұрын

Great program, congratulations!

@rchassereau2 9 ай бұрын

Good video, really enjoying your channel

@firstcynic92 9 ай бұрын

Not only were there nuclear powered cars: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qcmhf9Jpz9nbfGw.html There were also nuclear powered trains: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aKemZLNpyKy6p2w.html And busses: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ntBolMqJvt2nYqM.html 😂

@redtobertshateshandles 9 ай бұрын

There was a problem with junkies stealing reactors.

@The_CGA 7 ай бұрын

I guess the more obvious (to me) option of just powering turboprops with electricity from a reactor or RTG just wasn’t technologically on the table yet… I think the Soviets tried it later

@thurin84 9 ай бұрын

i hope the aircrew went out and got unofficial wings with a big nuclear symbol between the wings.

@crasyhorse44 9 ай бұрын

Tu-95LAL next?

@Lebxano 7 ай бұрын

What a badass looking plane. Wish they kept the new design for the b36 instead of scrapping it. Just take the reactor out and put the plane in a museum.

@90lancaster 9 ай бұрын

I bet Ace Combat fans are screaming Nuclear Power Aircraft that carries other Aircraft at the screen. The is a Diaclone toy out next year called "Cloud Across" that reminds me of that idea as it also doesn't have to land for months either.

@Kirktalon 9 ай бұрын

All too many challenges to overcome.

@uwu3130 9 ай бұрын

nice :3

@aceswild5071 9 ай бұрын

Interesting concept would be a nuclear stealth bomber such as the b21 raider

@lancerevell5979 9 ай бұрын

Worst problem is the possibility of the nuke bomber being shotdown, spreading fallout far and wide. The ultimate "dirty bomb"! Just not a well thought out idea.

@Otokichi786 9 ай бұрын

Aircraft of the 1950's did crash due to accidents, equipment failures or pilot error. The short reach of Air traffic control and (relatively) primitive radar systems yielded the airliner collision over the Grand Canyon. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Grand_Canyon_mid-air_collision

@womble321 9 ай бұрын

Considering they thought of using an engine that directly heated air and sprayed radioactive fallout from take off all over the US

@burtbacarach5034 9 ай бұрын

Never heard of the "SLAM" missle?

@comentedonakeyboard 9 ай бұрын

For maximum effect the plane should crash (in enemy territory) after delivering the nuke.

@dalenmonroe6526 9 ай бұрын

Nuclear power, great idea! nuclear powered transportation, stupid idea. Understandable why people want to harness it to its very limits but human beings as we are make it an awful idea solely because of how accident prone of a species we are. Its an amazing energy generator that we are ignoring for no good reason other than the fear mongering that has been left over since the major Chernobyl accident and Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant in Japan (easily avoided if they placed their backup diesel generators ABOVE sea level by at least 150 feet, or 50 meters) Both of those were negligence while 3 mile island melted down the way it was designed to IF it were to go critical that would minimize damage to its surroundings, which it did, PR was just a nightmare... Not even mentioning the fact its far more sustainable than solar panels and wind turbines (ill give newer magnet style ones props for being a lot better but still a serious waste of steel when thinking about the modularity of newer reactors and the next generation of SMR style reactors)

@redtobertshateshandles 9 ай бұрын

We don't know the truth. Governments never lie. I heard that to build plants safely is a huge amount of money that takes decades to recoup. For every coal fired powerstation we close down "someone" builds 10.

@captaindouchebag1703 9 ай бұрын

New Vegas was the best!

@user-bf1md8xv1p 9 ай бұрын

If the NB-36 crashed, what would they do about the radiation?

@burtbacarach5034 9 ай бұрын

Run away.

@captainsensiblejr. 5 ай бұрын

The 1950s is nowhere near 100 years ago

@thurin84 9 ай бұрын

direct air = nuclear fallout hair dryer. sure your hair gets dry, but then it falls out.

@Dreska_ 8 ай бұрын

We don't even make cargo ships nuclear powered, an aeroplane that will quite possibly crash one day simply due to mechanical failure or pilot error is a terrifying idea

@nektulosnewbie 29 күн бұрын

That was discovered durijg this period, though. They had to try thijgs out, hence why NS Savannah was built and showed how uneconomical nuke cargo ships were.

@1973Washu 9 ай бұрын

Can you make a bad idea fly? Yes , yes you can. A poorly shielded flying nuclear reactor that travels over populated areas is a disaster of epic proportions waiting to happen. Picture a Fukushima scale nuclear accident in the populated suburb near the airbase. Or over whatever town or farmland the bomber would be flying over if it was shot down during a mission.

@paulhunter1735 9 ай бұрын

Cosmetically looked the same......was only internally different? Man you need to get your eyes checked. There is a bulge in the side of the air frame ahead of the insignia at the rear of the plane and the nose and cockpit are entirely different lol.