Haven't finished watching the video yet. Just felt like saying #OccupyVenus with nuclear powered airplanes.

Love real engineering

THEY will need water for propulsion, they cant carry unlimited water

Dude fix your title, america no, USA. America is a continent i live in C U B A

i REALLY dont think nuclear planes are a good idea Plane crash however few statistically, happens And in this case ONE PLANE is able to cause another nuclear disaster Furthermore it will be a main target for enemy forces as it is hugely expensive and will cause quite a blow to that force

Hardly an American phenomenon. The Soviets also tested nuclear powered aircraft. They were also much less safe in protocol with shielding and monitoring and preparing/testing...

@@matchesburn The Soviets in generally valued life less... The nuclear tests in Kazakhstan were conducted near populated regions, and resulted in up to hundreds of thousands of deaths due to radiation exposure (the Soviets never even attempted to collect information on the death toll, same with Chernobyl, which resulted in 20-60 thousand deaths in radiation related cancer or otherwise). Not to mention all the mutation of survivors. There are tons of families still affected by mutation and cancer today in Kazakhstan. People cry about what the US did on accident, the Soviets did what they did intentionally.

That’s Fallout The video game if you’re wondering.

@@weasle2904 Look up Marshall Island dumbass.

@@elinikolai7493 What about them?

I do remember reading about it. Looking forward to that video!

From what I understand, my father was given a nuclear pacemaker. It worked for 7 years after he died. I'll have to look into it.

@@samuelnakai1804 please update us

@@samuelnakai1804 really? wow. They were mostly implanted in the 60s and 70s, does that sound right? Almost all were in the USA. Some people still have them in but I think most have been removed.

@@Richard-Freeman ha, sadly I'm not handsome enough to appear on camera with them. It's one of KZfaq's weird rules.

That is sick

Hehe 'lead'

Eivind Rømcke now this is podracing

Came here just for this comment

TELL EM, BRUDDER

I can't unsee it now.

Call of pripyat

@@as1m_ that was a pressure explosion

Afaik its actually what you call it. Uncontrolled and controlled. The "controlled" just means that the chain-reaction is so low that it doesn't grow beyond a set point instead of the chain reaction in a nuke which is built to grow as fast as possible to maximize the energy/time

The uncontrollability is achieved in a precise way that’s what he means. In a reactor the amount of atoms split are consistent, for example, 30 per second. In a bomb, the atoms explode and cause other atoms to explode and those atoms explode other atoms. The number of atoms spilt increase exponentially. And just cause it’s done in a precise way doesn’t mean it’s controlled. We can’t control a fucking nuclear bomb...

Very disappointed with this episode. This comment is absolutely correct. It is misleading for the presenter to imply uncontrolled equals atomic bomb. No nuclear reactor, even one mounted in a plane, would go off like a nuclear bomb. It has to be a very precise set of circumstances and a channel named “real engineering” should know better. Too bad because if they miss, Lord knows what else they miss.

WE currently have the technology for using nuclear fusion as an energy source. You take a non aligned neutral country and nuke it a number of times to form a radioactive dessert with a large ground zero crater in the middle. Then you manage the rain water drainage to flow towards the enormous crater previously nuked out. You now can drop a fusion bomb into that water filled crater to form steam which can be collected and channeled through piping into turbines to generate FREE ENERGY.

@Powerofriend That's how Murica works!

@@Powerofriend but we don't have pure fusion bomb lol

@@Powerofriend you do not need to go to such lenghts, an underground space with molten salts will work way better

@@ssd21345 we actually do, and had for decades. it is a two-stage mechanism but it does get its energy from fusion and it is orders of magnitude more powerful than fission.

I read that as the B-36 Pacemaker 😆

Thank you so much for pointing this out. The video creator did not discern between atomic and nuclear energy. It was readily apparent when he compare the atomic bombs to nuclear reactors.

It is controlled to have a uncontrolled reaction

Explain this to Iran

It's controlled to make it go out of hand as fast as possible.

Right. When uncontrolled, you get Chernobyl; a non-explosive, but very long lasting, radiation ball of radiation. Crazily enough, from some point of view the atomic bomb seems *less* damaging than a meltdown, at least from the perspective of how long the region is unusable...

I’m sorry to hear that.

I had a uncle who died from Leukemia. A friend contacted my grandmother and told her the reason he was sick was the Nuclear testing after WW 2.

S F omggg😂😂😂

Dude that’s fucking hilarious

We would be at peace because there would be no China xd

Unethical Guided Nukes XD

yαтѕυғυѕα there might also be no America

Or "excited" afaik

DAMN IT this comment needs to go up!!

Is that true? Wouldn't this program have been extremely classified?

Oh i kinda see the similarity

@@seandevine5836 There's two reasons why I assume this does not have to be the case, firstly, Gene Roddenberry was a military pilot during and after WWII so he might have been better informed and secondly, as shown Kennedy cancelled the program in 1961, after which I assume some of the information would have been declassified. According to Wikipedia, the first Star Trek series was drafted in '63-64, making this a plausible timeline.

Furthermore, Matt Jefferies the actual Star Trek set designer and creator of the original Enterprise NCC-1701 was also a WWII pilot and continued as a flight test engineer for the US Airforce

Japan would've fucking obliterated the U.S. with this tech.

M1A1 Abrams 3rd Generation MBT gru

🤣🤣🤣

Putting DEPLETED URANIUM in M1 abram

Jon Snow okay calm down we’re here for jokes

And that could have actually worked if flight testing of the nuclear engine had been possible (it used an unshielded reactor and spewed radioactive exhaust). At least the terrain following guidance system technology they developed for it got reused in the tomahawk cruise missile though.

Yep. Quehanna in PA is where they did the jet engine testing. Used to be a road called “Reactor Road” to “Lost Run Road”. Isn’t that funny.

@Noxar CZ use a ridiculous amount of ion engines

Get KSPIE, lots of nuclear engines in there. My spaceplanes all use nuclear engines and can carry up to 100 tons into LKO, and can fly in the atmosphere forever!

theres tons of mods who use thermonuclear jet engine !!!! infinite fuels but not that much thrust to balnce it out

Someone has done this

@@lexus14blacklist Matt Lowne?

I totally agree. We currently have green alternatives to most forms of transport except flight. I hope that fusion reactors or something similar can fill this gap

fusion could almost give us limitless amounts of energy

I've been there when I was at S1W.

Yeah it is really cool! One of the best museum I have been to! Edit: you should go to the national atomic testing museum in Las Vegas. You can slap a 5 megaton bunker buster. I don’t know if they still have it there, but it is very fun.

I heard There was a security issue whit them

@@vacciniumaugustifolium1420 yeah, Pres Nixon wanted jobs in California. The other thing was MS would have replaced the whole nuclear industry of the time Making solid fuel and refiling solid fuel reactors was a big business. Liquid fuel would have destroyed that industry. The MSR was a success that was killed for these reasons.

I think the corrosion was still a problem?

@@watintarnation9801 yeah they were still studying how to manage corrosion and xenon gas buildup, but it was a research project after all. They made huge progress with corrosion and no one involved in it thought it was an insurmountable challenge. It's a shame progress was halted by politics

At least it ain't Fallout 76 ;)

so you are deep in the rabbit hole ?

It didn't. They only tested shielding. As far as I could tell from my research that misconception was from a false news report in an aviation journal

And shielding is necessary for all electronic and electrical instrumentation.

@@RealEngineering So Curios Droid steered me wrong?! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/obhlmsiXup6bhI0.html Say it ain't so, Droid! Say it ain't so!

The plane that flew was the Тu-95 LAL, basically a Tu-95 bomber that was converted into a flying laboratory. They made about 30 flights with the nuclear reactor on-board to test the many aspects, including shielding for the crew and electronics. No one ever let the crew get irradiated (that is, as in countless cases, just an american myth about the USSR). The project was shut down in the 60s because the USSR has already developed ballistic missiles, so a nuclear bomber wasn't needed anymore. many of the engineering breakthroughs made during this this project were then used in other projects, like nuclear powered ice-breaking ships and submarines.

it seems sources do not agree completely... but some say their reactor never powered plane and plane only flew with regular engines while reactor was online... also some say that americans never turned on reactor when in flight... who know...

Exactly.. in a nuclear weapon, the hard part is to control the explosion sufficiently to get it to explode in an uncontrolled way....

No, the nuclear bombs are uncontrolled but they are precise, so every nuclear bomb has an uncontrolled reaction but every uncontrolled reaction isn't an atom bomb, which this chanel didn't seem to mention.

Imagine canceling a project because it was too good at what it was designed to do

Now imagine using the same engine on a smaller vehicle. Maybe TicTac or Propane Barrel size. And make it neutrally buyant so it stays afloat... Call it a UAP or UFO and call anyone crazy for reporting on it and do a smear campaign where you gaslight the society into believing in aliens... Do it secretly under a joint Nato nuclear military protection group during the cold war and add people from the previous world war under operation paperclip.... Continue the program after the US and other countries all signed treaties saying they wouldn't make nuclear powered aircrafts. Officially removing thw program from any oversight by the US government or congress... But keep it funded through Cia and fbi black book payments through spec ops. ($12,000 dollar toilet seats... ) After you realize the high exposer to nuclear energy is bad, and the ability for a person to move limits the vehicles performances. You remove the pilot and make it a full Drone. Because the Tic Tac Nuclear powered aircraft isn't a deterrent but a shield to protect major cities from a nuclear icbm. It is designed like the iron dome system to intercept nuclear missiles as conceptualized in the American psyche as "Superman" who diverts a nuclear bomb... Because in the prototypes a man had to fly it. And so it would be a suicide mission. But now they're drones. The concept was futher shown in the original avengers film as well as the dark night series... A noble single man's sacrifice to save a city... But now they're unmanned drones that apparently the US government has atleast 12 of.

Historical oofs

Yes

More crazy: air cooling Nuclear reactor

They are basically the same thing dummy

Nuclear powered planes would be a step to solve our current environmental issues, its the opposite of insane.

@@MrPobanz Radioactive Fume goes wheeeee

Yes and no. No jet fuel means that theres no burning liquid to take down the towers so the wtc would stand, the problem is the radiation.

@@CarlosAM1 But jet fuel can't melt steel beams?😝

@@henk-3098 it cant, but it sure as hell can weaken them :p

@@CarlosAM1 but if you fly a nuclear reactor into a building im ptetty sure youd be missing more than 2 towers plus radiation

@@fdfischer I would say no, the weight of the reactor plus the removal of fuel weight means that on impact the reactor would probably just disintegrate and spread radioactive material everywhere, this material if left unchecked and if able to keep itself on a feedback loop would at one point melt and generate absurd ammounts of heats, though unlike jet fuel its not spread everywhere as tons and tons of burning liquid, meaning that perhaps the tower could take the impact and subsequent heat, thing now is the radiation which wont do shit to the tower but will probably be an issue for people nearby.

It is much safer

@@kanarayanaphd but i like always having a chance of having fallout games in real life though

You and the guy above you have basically the same profile pic.

@@XZenon oh yeah yeah

thorium rocks

@Mario India's built a thorium reactor, it's in trials right now...

@@tsubadaikhan6332 I think the only thing that stopped thorium from being better than uranium in reactors is that thorium dioxide is pretty hard to make, having such a high melting point. Also, the elements it makes when it undergoes fission could be seperated and made into bomb grade uranium, but thats not really an argument because uranium reactors make plutonium.

@Mario And this is what you get when you only have a surface level understanding, not of the subject, but of the KZfaq video debunking something completely unrelated. In the TF video he even states that Thorium reactors could very well be viable but the Thorium car, which is what the video was about, was bullshit.

@Mario Correct. The specific claims made by the Th powered car video are physically impossible. A nuclear powered airplane is feasible if misguided. A breader reactor using Th as the fertile fuel is not just a good idea but our best bet to fight climate change.

i think i'll stick with insane. like a lot of other things humans have done in times of fear, and the cold war was such a time for sure. the idea is understandable, having a plane with unlimited range and no need for refueling doesn't sound bad, but come on a flying nuclear reactor is pure madness no matter how you put it. not as much as usa and russia threatening each other and the whole world with nuclear weapons but still...

They had a nuclear reactor with an OPEN FUCKING COOLANT LOOP Imagine Chernobyl, except it's DESIGNED to vomit radioactive particles all over the countryside. If that ain't insane, I don't know what is.

Indeed, insane is a bit exaggerated. In fact, this technology might become useful in the future in which aviation is electrified, especially in the EU. Shielding indeed should be improved to make the reactor withstand a crash from 30000ft out of the sky to make sure nothing is radiated on the ground. When that issue is fixed, then cargo planes could start using nuclear airplanes and perhaps followed up by passenger planes of deemed safe enough.

The point of the project was not to actually put planes into the air but to advance the types of nuclear reactors possible. The extreme needs of an aircraft would mean that novel approaches would be tested that would be helpful in a wide range of circumstances. It was not insane. It was carefully thought out. The Molten salt reactor experiment kept going during the 1960’s

Exactly. This is just fear mongering with pseudo engineers.

Stfu

One pen one teacher one student can change the world😀😀😀

Yhhh right

Also can change the game

Right

@@rohitbabakumar1068 how many accounts do you have?

Gorigori the shielding from radiation is too heavy to be realistically put on a plane. And the super heated air that the nuclear powered plane would use as propulsion would spew out irradiated air into the environment

For these, weight and size isn't really a problem. Besides, the water can be used for cooling.

I agree. That's prolly just for thumb nail clicks. "Insane" could mean "insanely good" or "insanely bad" depending on of you think nuclear power is good or bad. I, for one, am for it. Now if we could just do something about that pesky radioactive waste. Lol.

Power to weight ratio is not as big a problem on ships and submarines. And water is a much better coolant than air.

airplanes by their very nature are lightweight, and when they fall they spread debris over a large area submarines implode in depths and their hulks may never resurface again

Planet Earth would have liked hit, can you imagine a world with less reliance on fossil fuels or how quickly nuclear power and safty measures would have advanced had we actually fulfilled the promise of the nuclear age?

@@YoshiyukiTomino I wish we pursued more Nuclear energy. We could have had a much lower carbon foot footprint just on the electricity sector alone

I seriously doubt that. All of those are putative black project stealth aircraft. Leaving a massive isotope trail is the antithesis of stealth. No nuclear motors have ever been approved by the FAA, and engines for black projects don't need regulatory approval that would compromise their security. Furthermore, they would have to be unmanned aircraft as the massive shielding needed to protect the pilot would cut into the aircraft operational usability. I think you may be confusing nuclear powered motors with the various exotic (but not nuclear) propulsion systems some of these are speculated to employ.

i understand that Jane's military encyclopedia refers to an "Aurora" project which employs antigravity tech. The late nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman was a senior engineer working on the nuclear aircraft project and after retiring went on to study UFO/ET phenomena .

@@michaelclark4876 not true, many nuclear aircraft Patents exist, and have been approved bu the FAA. And, a contained system leaves no isotope train, just like in submarines. Putative indeed! Amusing.

@@yahwea Yes, a fully contained system would not leave a radioisotope trail behind. It would need to some system for transferring power from the reactor to power turbines running turbofans. Rubbing a true jet would be difficult as you would have to heat by heat exchange rathe than fuel. I have doubts about practicality due to the need for shielding (major problem with the first nuclear aircraft designs) and with a closed system it would now require heat exchangers. So I' still dubious, and patents can be issued for mere ideas, but they are still a good place to start. But FAA doesn't approve ideas, only aircraft so that would imply an actual aircraft that has gotten off the ground. So it doesn't matter what anyone believes, If the patents and FAA approvals are there, they are there. Could you provide some patent and FAA approval references? URLs to the primary sources in the pertinent government databases would be ideal, but even patent reference numbers ( for the designs you mention) and info to allow using the FAA aircraft registry lookup service (such as N-number, serial number, make/model, etc.) You can find the search types at the looks page here registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/ To be honest, I looked and was unable to find anything, but just because I couldn't pull it out of the FAA database doesn't mean it isn't in there. Clearly you know enough to find the reference, could you provide the info needed to pull up the data. I'm interested in reading about this.

Nah fam, it's merely stating that controlled fission is how we get nuclear power plant energy, and uncontrolled fission is how nuclear bombs work. Even if you're really nitpicky on this, it's more an English usage error than anything else. I would hazard a guess to say that it's common knowledge for people to know about controlled and uncontrolled fission, but I might also be horribly wrong too considering how many flat-earthers and antivaxxers there are out there today

Following up on what I was saying about applications of fission: iirc nuclear plants have about 5-20% U-235 content (enriched uranium), and nuclear bombs use somewhere around 85% enriched uranium. Pretty hard to create nuclear bomb tier explosions from reactors by flipping some switch. Usually, the nuclear plant explosions happened in the past due to buildup of steam or hydrogen gas, the latter of which is then ignited by the high temperatures. Still conventional though, and incapable of triggering an uncontrolled chain reaction.

@@the-fantabulous-g My point stands.

Not really, once the geometry of the fuel bundle is lost the fission process will stop.

Yeah i was thinking something similar. Even if a nuclear reactor would not explode upon crashing.. this type of bomber would always cause some damage. Either it drops bombs like intended, or it gets shot down and spready radiation in the atmosphere over some city plus at the crash site lol. Would kinda suck for the receiving end.

Nuclear meltdown isn't a nuclear explosion

@@joshuamunoz3310 It doesnt have to be,A nuclear meltdown would leak radiation all over said city,resulting in it being unlivable,like Chernobyl

So a Missile...

I second this.

mini dwarfdude what? Elon musk is already famous enough dumbass

@@klown463 Do you know who Tesla is? (Or was. He's dead now.)

Dangerous though anyway. Safer may be made, but the nuclear core remains a liability. Aviation accidents still regretfully happen. Now try and image an accident of a nuclear powered plane. Perhaps over or in the proximity of a city. Not only a sad happening for the passengers and the few unfortunate bystanders on the crashing place, but a hair-raising irradiated nightmare for thousands to millions of people.

yes and some others too... once one of this channels has good topics all do videos on that topic lol

Yeah - I cringed when the narrator spoke that line too. The video was pretty good over all, but that simplistic and unnecessary comment at the end soured the whole experience for me. Stick to the facts please.

Some were unnecessary. And I think today you would call them war crimes. I know some people argue the two Nukes over Japan shorten the war and saved lifes. I can't answer that, but it doesn't take from the point that 1 Nuke should have been enough to show Japan what can happen.

Marcus Antonius Eh, Japan took two nukes before it surrendered, so no.

@@MarcusAntoniusbla fuck did you know what japan did to Korea and china

DO IT AGAIN, BOMBER HARRIS

X stands for Xperimental

@@rHolmskov Yeah NB-36 will be Nuclear Bomber - 36 H (H probably the variant of B-36 it was made from) and XP-36H will be the prototype.

@@rHolmskov Yes, obviously, but he talked about one aircraft and showed another. This is an outrage! (JK obviously...)

Corporations and governments frequently give different designations to the planes. It's for marketing purposes.

What could go wrong?

Lmao

Murica fuck yeah!

Okko Heinonen great kamikaze plane

Okko Heinonen flykushima