@SYT88: Any idea what you would do with it out there, that hasn't been done? Russians launched reactor powered satellites; the US does launch RTGs in their outer solar system probes. Both nations had projects to research nuclear powered rockets; neither has opted to use them. So, what do you suggest?
Russia seems to be the superior initiator's of original designs! Like wise the German's, Chinese, British,American's etc.... After all they all ended working together to create the ultimate design in weaponry... How dumb is that?
Any country that deploys a nuclear drone over another countries airspace, that alone can be consider an act of war. That's like flying a over a country with a loaded nuke or a bio-chemical warhead.
@ddnguyen278: There was no suggestion of that (especially after Francis Powers was knocked down). The idea expressed in this video was to hover in international air space, much like the submarines were stationed outside the national sea limits.
personally, I think it something that would never happen, if a plane gets shot down than you've just given the enemy a nuclear device. I don't think the advantages outweigh the aim.
@rudejoni thats if it doenst explode after a crash. think about it going boom thousands of meters above and the radian spread over hundreds of square km, blows to other countries by winds , taken away by moisture and raining thousands of kilometers away. It was a crazy idea to begin with.
@puncheex The dangers of such an event were known at that time.So it wasnt a 20-20 hindsight issue, just that fear of the USSR and war propoganda were enough to overwhelm common sense in the land of the "brave" as it is today.
@sushanalone More like US propaganda, ppl here still believe commercial airliners hit the towers. That was a war promo from hell. As an engineer, u should understand 4mm of sheet aluminum can not shear 20mm of structural steel box column, esp from the side.
@cheerdiver the aluminum didnt shear the colums .The building stood for a while as the aeroplane fuel burned and reached temperatures where the concrete protecting the beams cracked and fell off, exposing the steel to high temperatures.At high temperatures steel exponentially loses its bearing capacity and tensile strength causing it to buckle and fall.The floors arent designed to take impact of 10 stories above falling simultaneously, causing the pancake stack effect .
@sushanalone How niave r u kid? No civil engineer will stand behind the "pancake theory", NONE. These are called super structures for a reason, it took the release of fission energy to bring them down. Find Dimitri Khalezov to understand what happened. This BS "phenomenon" promonted will not conform to the LAWS OF PHYSICS! Understand Newton's third law, if these were solid object the AC would have slowed down on impact. The smoke wasn't even jet black as jet fuel fires are.
@cheerdiver i doubt you have any knowledge of structural engineering,civil engg or material properties.It does not require fissile materials to bring down a superstructure,it is made within factors of safety way less than dams or other important structures,which do not need fission to destroy.I think you are pretty unqualified to have this discussion & i wont waste my time arguing with your childish conspiracy theories when you think the impact of the plane's aluminum caused the collapse of WTC.
@cheerdiver once that aluminum impact shearing the steel columns was debunked, now you come up with the theory that it requires fission reaction to bring down a superstructure.The smallest nuclear weapon would have blown half of newyork and left radiation enough to be detected on the other side of the country.You seek explanations thats match what you want to believe, thats why you are wrong most of the time.I know you will come up with another goofy theory, to keep me entertained.
@sushanalone A NASA thermal image showing the blast radius: loc(dot)gov/exhibits/911/images/lg-map-therm1.jpg
U know NOTHING about nuclear devices, look at Hiroshima TODAY. A Plutonium device using 2% of it's potential energy. The B-25 bomber that struck the empire st bld FELL TO THE STREET. Radiation was detected, chalked up as "medical equip" by MSM. No one can hear an underground discharge, freq produced is <10Hz. NOT POSSIBLE 4 AN AC TO DISAPPEAR, NO BLACK BOXES WERE FOUND.!.
@cheerdiver i was studying civil engineering and we had an entire 1 hour lecture by some of the more experienced and qualified engineers explaining this phenomenon , along with the other possibilities for the failure of columns.Its the best solution available, though there might be certain factors we will never know.But truth wont be very different from this.
@rudejoni: There's a vast difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb. Though, if it had worked, the cold war would have been a whole lot tenser than it was.
the ramjet "Slam" bomber reminds me of the German V1, also a pilotless plane designed to crash into a target with a huge payload. the basic design is very similar and the outer appearance is shockingly alike.
It sounds great but no matter the tech and the time of the project we would end up with fleets of nuclear bombers that could crash anywhere and anytime.Thank god it was canceled.
soo.. we can go to the moon, found a colony.. the only problem of course is that were human, ... laser gun fighters on the moon XD ... alas, such slaughter..
Thanks This was something I never knew about till today. Who says you can't teach an old dog LOL.
I wonder why they never thought about using the electrical power from the reactor to power proppellers for crusing and having standard jet engines for short range speed?
REASON1: Thermodynamics my friend, thermodynamics ... there's a huge loss in converting warmth energy to elektricity.
REASON2: The turbine and the generator needed for the conversion wieght's tons , not to mension the weight of the elektrmotors to power the propellors.
REASON3: Propellors really suck in comparison to jet engines, you would have needed much more propellors then jet engines ...
When the NS Savannah (first nuclear powered cargo-passenger ship) was being built, they were considering a giant powered airship for transport and passenger service useing the power supply similar to the ones used on submarines of the time. Less restriction on weight.
they should rather focus on using nuclear energy in space exploration
SYT88 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Anat0ly
@SYT88: Any idea what you would do with it out there, that hasn't been done? Russians launched reactor powered satellites; the US does launch RTGs in their outer solar system probes. Both nations had projects to research nuclear powered rockets; neither has opted to use them. So, what do you suggest?
puncheex 3 months ago
I love how the wheels retract directly into the engines themselves. XD
pageygeeza 3 months ago
Good god. Who the heck thought this was a good idea?
themuffinman12345 4 months ago
@themuffinman12345: Lots of non-scientist military people.
puncheex 3 months ago
Thank God that this never came to fruition.
86kinky86 4 months ago
alright now we need nuclear reactors flying at thousands of meters altitude. Next step should be a nuclear Christmas tree.
sushanalone 4 months ago
Fascinating stuff.
Keruaran 5 months ago
Russia seems to be the superior initiator's of original designs! Like wise the German's, Chinese, British,American's etc.... After all they all ended working together to create the ultimate design in weaponry... How dumb is that?
Blodwen0404 5 months ago in playlist More videos from Anat0ly
Any country that deploys a nuclear drone over another countries airspace, that alone can be consider an act of war. That's like flying a over a country with a loaded nuke or a bio-chemical warhead.
ddnguyen278 6 months ago 4
@ddnguyen278: There was no suggestion of that (especially after Francis Powers was knocked down). The idea expressed in this video was to hover in international air space, much like the submarines were stationed outside the national sea limits.
puncheex 3 months ago
Russian engineers: *Troll face*
Attiladesigner22 6 months ago
thanks for the upload
personally, I think it something that would never happen, if a plane gets shot down than you've just given the enemy a nuclear device. I don't think the advantages outweigh the aim.
rudejoni 7 months ago
@rudejoni thats if it doenst explode after a crash. think about it going boom thousands of meters above and the radian spread over hundreds of square km, blows to other countries by winds , taken away by moisture and raining thousands of kilometers away. It was a crazy idea to begin with.
sushanalone 4 months ago
@sushanalone: Yes, it is, in 20-20 hindsight.
puncheex 3 months ago
@puncheex The dangers of such an event were known at that time.So it wasnt a 20-20 hindsight issue, just that fear of the USSR and war propoganda were enough to overwhelm common sense in the land of the "brave" as it is today.
sushanalone 3 months ago
@sushanalone More like US propaganda, ppl here still believe commercial airliners hit the towers. That was a war promo from hell. As an engineer, u should understand 4mm of sheet aluminum can not shear 20mm of structural steel box column, esp from the side.
Many more details give away the "magic trix".
cheerdiver 1 month ago
@cheerdiver the aluminum didnt shear the colums .The building stood for a while as the aeroplane fuel burned and reached temperatures where the concrete protecting the beams cracked and fell off, exposing the steel to high temperatures.At high temperatures steel exponentially loses its bearing capacity and tensile strength causing it to buckle and fall.The floors arent designed to take impact of 10 stories above falling simultaneously, causing the pancake stack effect .
sushanalone 1 month ago
@sushanalone How niave r u kid? No civil engineer will stand behind the "pancake theory", NONE. These are called super structures for a reason, it took the release of fission energy to bring them down. Find Dimitri Khalezov to understand what happened. This BS "phenomenon" promonted will not conform to the LAWS OF PHYSICS! Understand Newton's third law, if these were solid object the AC would have slowed down on impact. The smoke wasn't even jet black as jet fuel fires are.
cheerdiver 1 month ago
@cheerdiver i doubt you have any knowledge of structural engineering,civil engg or material properties.It does not require fissile materials to bring down a superstructure,it is made within factors of safety way less than dams or other important structures,which do not need fission to destroy.I think you are pretty unqualified to have this discussion & i wont waste my time arguing with your childish conspiracy theories when you think the impact of the plane's aluminum caused the collapse of WTC.
sushanalone 1 month ago
@cheerdiver once that aluminum impact shearing the steel columns was debunked, now you come up with the theory that it requires fission reaction to bring down a superstructure.The smallest nuclear weapon would have blown half of newyork and left radiation enough to be detected on the other side of the country.You seek explanations thats match what you want to believe, thats why you are wrong most of the time.I know you will come up with another goofy theory, to keep me entertained.
sushanalone 1 month ago
@sushanalone A NASA thermal image showing the blast radius: loc(dot)gov/exhibits/911/images/lg-map-therm1.jpg
U know NOTHING about nuclear devices, look at Hiroshima TODAY. A Plutonium device using 2% of it's potential energy. The B-25 bomber that struck the empire st bld FELL TO THE STREET. Radiation was detected, chalked up as "medical equip" by MSM. No one can hear an underground discharge, freq produced is <10Hz. NOT POSSIBLE 4 AN AC TO DISAPPEAR, NO BLACK BOXES WERE FOUND.!.
cheerdiver 1 month ago
@cheerdiver i was studying civil engineering and we had an entire 1 hour lecture by some of the more experienced and qualified engineers explaining this phenomenon , along with the other possibilities for the failure of columns.Its the best solution available, though there might be certain factors we will never know.But truth wont be very different from this.
sushanalone 1 month ago
@rudejoni: There's a vast difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb. Though, if it had worked, the cold war would have been a whole lot tenser than it was.
puncheex 3 months ago
the ramjet "Slam" bomber reminds me of the German V1, also a pilotless plane designed to crash into a target with a huge payload. the basic design is very similar and the outer appearance is shockingly alike.
funny that it was never mentioned.
Corristo89 8 months ago
It sounds great but no matter the tech and the time of the project we would end up with fleets of nuclear bombers that could crash anywhere and anytime.Thank god it was canceled.
tr1p0n1 9 months ago
Direct Cycle Nuclear Ramjet Cruise Missile.. YES!
JeffBilkins 10 months ago
@JeffBilkins AKA - Nuclear Bomb
Dr3aDnAuGhTz 8 months ago
Love how everyone was always surprised at how advanced Russian aviation was, they're pretty smart over there too y'know!
Scourge151 10 months ago 4
@Scourge151 no-one doubts theyre intellegence, just they're economy at that time
9911MU51C 6 months ago
Called it: they disregarded safety to get results
Treblaine 11 months ago
soo.. we can go to the moon, found a colony.. the only problem of course is that were human, ... laser gun fighters on the moon XD ... alas, such slaughter..
teddythebenny 11 months ago
Now it doesnt need a crew so the problem is solved :D
Razor4ever 1 year ago
i don't think that the materials of the planes would ever last that long (months) in the air without maintance
MisterGasMan 1 year ago
The nuclear ram jet actually worked, it was on a train car, they fired it up for a few seconds in the 1960 and shut it down.
GunsOfThePhoenix 1 year ago
The way russia's become lately they wouldn't have released info in '91
bluenail90 1 year ago
Could there ever be a Nuclear powered Dildo that would never die?
handsupbud 1 year ago
A nuclear powered plane. A totally crazy idea......but no less magnificent.
Truly fascinating......good post.
Infidelerious 1 year ago
...so when is the nuc powered high altitude piloitless space eagle being publicly acknowledge
docatomics 1 year ago
Amazing story - but one of the stupidest ideas in the world.
adventurearch 1 year ago
Thanks This was something I never knew about till today. Who says you can't teach an old dog LOL.
I wonder why they never thought about using the electrical power from the reactor to power proppellers for crusing and having standard jet engines for short range speed?
vince38curious2 1 year ago
@vince38curious2
REASON1: Thermodynamics my friend, thermodynamics ... there's a huge loss in converting warmth energy to elektricity.
REASON2: The turbine and the generator needed for the conversion wieght's tons , not to mension the weight of the elektrmotors to power the propellors.
REASON3: Propellors really suck in comparison to jet engines, you would have needed much more propellors then jet engines ...
karstenda 1 year ago
@karstenda Ahh OK I never thought about the added weight from all the other motors and yes propellors do suck compared to jet engines.
vince38curious2 1 year ago
A nuclear powered global hawk? ome hackers gonna fly it into the white house.
vodkasvictim 1 year ago
right technology. wrong time.
Sprinterdrift 2 years ago 42
@Sprinterdrift When would it be the right time to have flying nuclear reactors?
jkyet 6 months ago 3
thank you! I was looking just for this material! thanks again!
nocturaix 2 years ago 25
When the NS Savannah (first nuclear powered cargo-passenger ship) was being built, they were considering a giant powered airship for transport and passenger service useing the power supply similar to the ones used on submarines of the time. Less restriction on weight.
candr 3 years ago
Absolutely amazing! Spassiba for uploading! :-)
Bearkiller72 3 years ago
TY very much for the upload!
theqwertyui 3 years ago