Nuclear-Powered Sky Hotel - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 07:32:13 am
content: This has to be awarded my favourite nonsense award 2022.I wish, creativity doesn't almost always come with the complete ignorance of physical laws.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 09:20:53 am
content: Quite some nonsense indeed.The "electric" turbines still look a lot like conventional.I would see come back in 500 years and see how much of the ideas may actually work. I doubt it would be much.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 09:47:57 am
content: Looks like a cutting edge concept from a 1960s Thunderbirds episode. Just without the 'strings attached'. Picture: a meeting of world leaders at the atomic sky hotel named Icarus, is a sabotaged when The Hood places a mine in the nuclear thruster control. Can International Rescue save the world's leaders before the Icarus crashes into the special effects department? F.A.B.

author: AnalogueLove1867
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 09:52:15 am
content: I mean nuclear (fission) aircraft have existed and still exist in some capacity somewhere. Seems to be super-secret experimental USA/Russian stuff.So way too expensive to even be considered by a billionaire. But they do certainly fly.Some aircraft do actually look similar to this design.Yeah, in my view something isn't creative if it fails to achieve a purpose. Then it just becomes a random thought.An original idea that achieves something is creative.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 11:35:42 am
content: Yep this is ridiculous.Nuclear powered aircraft certainly existed at one point as a military experiment. The goal of it being an aircraft that can just keep flying without the need to refuel. However we haven't seen or heard anything about them ever since because they came to a conclusion that they are very impractical. In the end the whole thing became more of a dick measuring content between the US and Russia (much like the space race). Tho according to the available info the US plane never actually flew solely on nuclear power, they just flown a running reactor on a regular plane while did actual engine testing on ground. The Russians supposedly did have a plane flying on pure nuclear power, but the crew got irradiated because they left off some of the lead reactor shielding so that the plane was light enough (even tho the planes ware already rather big). They also used heat directly from the reactor, no electricity (that conversion is very inefficient and adds even more weight)This is a basic problem with making mobile nuclear reactors (They do work on ships and submarines tho, since those can be as heavy as they want). They need a LOT of heavy shielding and we can't just use technology to work around the problem, you have to have lots of physical 'stuff' in the way to stop those energetic particles. So the huge weight of a reactor poses obvious problems when trying to build a plane that is light enough to actually fly. However planes also have a very critical weight distribution requirement, they want to have the mass close to there center to be stable while also being somewhat distributed to reduce the load on the airframe. So you can't stick the reactor far away from the planes hull, so radiation shielding becomes that much more important. Especially since they plan on flying for years at a time.These radiation problems are stacked on top of the radiation that is caused by cosmic rays beating down on the upper layers of the atmosphere. This radiation is not that much of a problem on a few hour flight here and there in a regular plane, but if you spend years up there it does add up.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 12:55:10 pm
content: Nuclear fusion reactors don't even work on the ground and the current projections are that they are huge and heavy (if they work at all). It looks like not even practical for a ship.The nuclear plane idea were more like plans and failed ideas of the early nuclear age.In the Ford museum in Detroid they have a muck-up for a nuclear powered car. Just for illustration of what was considered in the 1950s to get attraction.It is a bit strange what those totally stupid videos on youtube are good for. At best they are click bait for a,and.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 01:00:02 pm
content: A380 weights 560 tons and needs 250 MW to start, people say..With 5000 passengers and all that stuff inside the plane will be say 30x heavier.It would need at least 50000 MW reactor to fly that gadget, imho..They talk "nuclear fusion reactor". We do not have any experience with it as of today (weight, radiation, effectiveness, etc)..With say 3000 ton heavy reactor it could be doable in 500 years from now.I would be happy to meet Kleinstein on that flight then..

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 01:28:23 pm
content: LOL, what happens to the water in the swimming pool during takeoff and landing?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 01:46:05 pm
content: Many years ago, there was a science-fiction story (I believe published inAnalogmagazine) where the American nuclear-powered bomber project had produced a working unit.When it finally took to the air, it was manned by a bunch of steam enthusiasts (sometimes called "foamers") who kept marking new historical milestones, such as when they exceeded the previous record for altitude with a steam locomotive (in the Andes).

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 01:53:14 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on July 05, 2022, 01:28:23 pmThe heavy water in the swimming pool will be frozen before the takeoff, then used as the fuel for the reactor, as cooling for the reactor and other systems, for drinking and washing, for the swimming as well, and before the landing it will be frozen again (full recycling will be done, of course).. No single drop of it will be wasted.. Energy will be plenty for that..

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 04:27:59 pm
content: Quote from: AndyBeez on July 05, 2022, 09:47:57 amThis is exactly what popped into my head immediately also!

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 04:58:14 pm
content: to edavid: Thanks for the reference! I just ordered a copy of the paperback.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 05:02:40 pm
content: AFAIK the nuclear reactor aircraft had little minor issues with the exhaust being rather engine rich, in that the zirconium cladding on the reactor fuel tended to oxidise rather rapidly in the airflow, and then the HEU fuel tended to be dumped in the exhaust as well. not a problem for a doomsday weapon, but kind of inconvenient if you actually wanted to ever use the land it flew over again in the next quarter million years.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 05:09:53 pm
content: In the SF stories, the main practical problem seemed to be that once you landed the craft, it was hard to exit since the body of the craft was not radiation shielded (for obvious reasons), just the control/passenger compartment.The propulsion system seemed to be based on a US Navy nuclear-submarine reactor driving old-fashioned propellors through electric motors, using steam turbines (hence the "foamers").

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 05:32:27 pm
content: Quote from: BrianHG on July 05, 2022, 01:28:23 pmSurely in something so advanced they will have vertical takeoff and landing ability

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 06:41:42 pm
content: Uh, don't get all worked up. From what I got, this is just a random concept.

author: AndyBeez
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 08:34:47 pm
content: I just remembered, it's already been done before. TheFhloston Paradiseuses some weirdfifth elementas the power source. I wonder if Carnival Cruises are taking advanced bookings?https://fifth-element.fandom.com/wiki/Fhloston_Paradise

author: Bicurico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 10:49:41 pm
content: Why not just use a Zeppelin?Use some inert gas instead of hydrogen and cover the outside with solar panels to feed the electric motors of the propellers.Seems feasible, cheap and would allow for long periods in the air. Plus it should be scalable in size.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2022, 11:12:51 pm
content: Quote from: Bicurico link=topic=331732[subThe only inert gas that is lighter than air is helium. Water vapor is not truly inert, and of medium molecular weight. Nitrogen (N2) is only slightly lighter than air.Hydrogen has more lifting power than helium, since H2is half the molecular weight of4He.“Town gas” was common in balloons during the Civil War—what could go wrong?For a good party in a dirigible, see the 1930 film “Madam Satan” directed by Cecil B DeMille.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 01:22:41 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on July 05, 2022, 05:32:27 pmThey would need to accelerate and decelerate at such a combination of controlled slow speed and absolute perfect angle, they would never get anywhere.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 03:37:08 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 05, 2022, 11:12:51 pmYeah what can happen they though when launching the Hindenburg

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 03:48:11 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on July 06, 2022, 01:22:41 amAs if the rest of it all is feasibleThe whole rotating observation deck on the back tail fin, the elevators on the side of the plane, the 5000 passengers that need to be strapped in during the same takeoff and landing, the immense scale of the whole thing to house the shopping mall, restaurants, huge bedrooms, etc.I'm no airplane engineer, but keeping such a thing airborne takes a lot of wing surface that have to handle a lot of stress. Doubt it is possible even 500 years from now.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 04:47:48 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on July 06, 2022, 03:48:11 amLOL, so I guess the 20 nuclear powered jet turbines couldn't overcompensate for the lack of wind area....

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 05:06:17 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on July 06, 2022, 04:47:48 amI don't know if just forward thrust would be enough to keep a "straw" airborne, but it is interesting for an experiment. I read that some of the stealth planes can only fly with the help of computers due to the unusual wing design and probably need a lot of thrust to do so, but they still have a lot of wing span.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 05:16:28 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on July 06, 2022, 05:06:17 amMan, try not to take everything said in this thread too seriously...Maybe comeback with something like an additional 50 jets should get it to hover...

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 05:51:13 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on July 06, 2022, 05:06:17 amThose planes mostly just have an aerodynamic design that is not inherently stable. Most planes simply fly straight if you let go of all control surfaces, much like a car wants to go straight if you let go of the steering wheel. This stability is from having the center of mass slightly in front of the center of lift. It is the same effect that makes arrows fly straight (where center of mass is way way in front). If you have a funky wing design that center of lift could move to where you don't want it and the plane might suddenly want to fly 'backwards' in some situations. But making a plane stable also means it resists making a turn since it wants to go straight, so modern militairy jets put the center of mass and lift right on top of each other. This means you can push the plane into whatever orientation with very little force and it doesn't turn back. This makes it much more maneuverable but makes it hate flying straight, so the control surfaces have to constantly put in small corrections to keep it going straight. This would be way too high of a mental load for the pilot and a slight mistake would make the plane flip out and tear itself apart, so computers are put in charge of making it happen. This fly by wire approach is used on some modern passenger aircraft but mostly as a pilot aid, the planes still fly stable.Thrust by itself doesn't stabilize flight. Often it does the opposite since if the thrust force vector is not pointing straight trough the center of mass the thrust actually makes an aircraft turn in that direction. You need active thrust vectoring and a computer doing it to get extra stability from it (this is what rockets do)

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 05:52:57 am
content: Quote from: BrianHG on July 06, 2022, 05:16:28 amI don't. Maybe I should also have added the LOLBut yes adding a lot of downward facing jets would helpThat also takes care of the vertical takeoff and landing

author: AnalogueLove1867
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 06:29:44 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 05, 2022, 11:12:51 pmNeon and a vacuum lol, two more impractical suggestions.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 01:02:19 pm
content: I forgot neon and stand corrected. With atomic weight of 20, it's not very buoyant.Vacuum doesn't work, since a dirigible requires a positive pressure to keep the gasbags inflated.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 01:05:48 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on July 06, 2022, 03:37:08 am"What could go wrong?" is a sarcastic comment. What did go wrong with hydrogen in the Hindenburg is still controversial. For a good history, see A Rose: "Empires of the Sky", Random House, 2020.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 01:35:51 pm
content: We can use pure hydrogen and we know how engineer out the problems of the Hindenburg, like not creating a blimp with an outer shell made of cloth fabric which was painted with partially conductive aluminum based solid rocket fuel.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 03:33:09 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 06, 2022, 01:05:48 pmI did get that, and was just emphasizing it with something that did go wrong. Brian pointed out what could have been the problem there.On the natural gas balloon the risks might not be that big as long as the balloon is gas-tight. When the balloon is filled with 100% gas (Or even as low as 16%) you can create sparks within it and nothing will happen, but you probably know that already. (Natural gas has a flammability range of approximately 5 to 15 percent.) Hydrogen is way worse. (4 - 75%)p.s. I also noticed that I missed the t at the end of "though" to make it a proper sentence.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2022, 08:21:26 pm
content: In the US Civil War, "natural gas" was not a common thing. "Town gas", also known as "coal gas" was popular until roughly 1960-1970, when natural gas pipelines took over the market.I remember when the gas utility in town came to replace the orifices in our kitchen stove to use natural gas.Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas

author: AnalogueLove1867
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2022, 07:08:56 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on July 06, 2022, 03:33:09 pmSomething to consider that just occurred to me.For Hydrogen there would be no such thing as leak free for a balloon skin Since it can pass through a thick metal wall with no problems.Then You have Hydrogen embrittlement of aluminum and steel ( Hindenburg had an Aluminium alloy frame ).

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2022, 07:37:00 pm
content: Oh dear... The whole media frenzy concerning this idea is incredible. It's like a reporter sat down next to two high as a kite stoners who were having a discussion:QuoteAnd wide eyed wrote down every single thing, edited it and somehow that got into the media.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2022, 07:45:55 pm
content: to AnalogueLove1867Something to consider that just occurred to me.For Hydrogen there would be no such thing as leak free for a balloon skin Since it can pass through a thick metal wall with no problems.Then You have Hydrogen embrittlement of aluminum and steel ( Hindenburg had an Aluminium alloy frame).Dirigibles (such as the Zeppelins) used gasbags contained within an aluminum-alloy space frame, which was covered by lightweight fabric coated to reflect sunlight and minimize solar heating.Blimps (such as the current Goodyear models) use a non-structural gasbag.Apparently, the modern replacement for rubberized silk is PET (Mylar) coated with a thin layer of aluminum.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoPET

author: AnalogueLove1867
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2022, 07:26:26 am
content: Yeah, and that sounds like a nightmare with hydrogen because you would have a continual leak of hydrogen into that space between the gasbag and the outside covering.So a mix of Hydrogen and Air that is waiting to ignite as a short term problem and then hydrogen embrittlement as a long-term problem.So maybe you could have a fan that continuously blows in fresh filtered air into the gap at the front with an exit opening at the back?And some chemical hydrogen absorber as an extra safety measure?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2022, 01:33:36 pm
content: With reasonable ventilation inside the frame, there should be no buildup of hydrogen outside the gasbags.To get hydrogen embrittlement, you need a large concentration of hydrogen at the metal, and usually high temperatures.

author: Bicurico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2022, 05:44:27 pm
content: When thinking about this, I would say that a nuclear-powered sky hotel based on a plane concept will never work at all.But the Zeppelin concept already worked in the past and could eventually be reengineered with much more safety.I would not go so far as having a shopping mall and swimming pool, but it could certainly skale to something bigger than an A320.Also, the comfort of travelling at lower altitude and at a slower speed, would make for great journeys to appreaciate planet Earth.I wonder if a fatal accident to the H2 deposits would happen: could the passenger cabin be released from the "balloon" structure and fall to earth using oversized parachutes?Compared to space tourism or cruising ships, I would imagine that a modern Zeppelin would be much more Eco-friendly, especially if the outside of the ballon-structure would be covered with solar panels that then would drive the electric motors used for propellers.I think my concept is much more realistic than the Nuclear-Powered Sky Hotel...

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2022, 07:09:11 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on July 08, 2022, 07:37:00 pmI noticed that what I thought was just random shit was indeed invading the media for some reason.But that's just because the media outlets have largely become annexes of social networks - piggybacking on them - so the same kind of content can be found, and the same idiocracy rules.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2022, 07:08:35 am
content: Quote from: Bicurico on July 10, 2022, 05:44:27 pmGoogle "Cargolifter"... Been there, done that. Bankrupt.

author: JohnG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 18, 2022, 01:19:33 pm
content: Just got to get that Tomasite on the approved vendors list...https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/TSflylab.htmlJohn