Why did I mention it? Well, I thought that it's obvious. Look, fuel costs are extreme, I did a quick Google search and got for example:

>"For the airline I work for that would mean that an oversimplified average flight's fuel cost is about 40 percent of the overall cost. It's the single most important cost."[1]

Almost nothing is as power-dense as a nuclear reactor's core, but you would need an absolutely massive plane before you could see the economy of scale to use it. Unless someone got it down to a manageable size - say, container size. And had a large enough plane to place it on.

If you read the article I linked (again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy ) it actually would benefit immediately from a kind of power plant that didn't have to store such huge fuel weight. It says: "We started to build the C-5 and wanted to build the biggest thing we could..."

I am not saying it would go in a C-5, only that this company has experience building absolutely huuuuuge planes. And the data sheet gives you tantalizing visions for the future. (Well, it gives me tantalizing visions for the future.)

This is how the jet fuel economy works on the C-5 currently: ""After being one of the worst-run programs, ever, in its early years, it has evolved very slowly and with great difficulty into a nearly adequate strategic airlifter that unfortunately needs in-flight refueling or a ground stop for even the most routine long-distance flights."

So you see, at the moment it's a huge gigantic plane that Lockheed Martin has huge experience with, and needs to refuel mid-flight for even routine long-distance flights.

It also has a payload of 270,000 lbs (120 imperial tons.) That's not counting the 51,150 gallons of fuel capacity.

Do you think that would carry a container?

We are looking at the kind of thing (or maybe a somewhat larger version) that might actually be able to use an on-board nuclear power-plant.

Again: where else on Earth would anyone need a container-sized nuclear power plant? (Genuinely.)

So I'm just connecting the dots here.

By the way, just for your information, do you know what percent of all human carbon dioxide emissions are caused by plane travel?

Google says: "In 2013, aircraft were responsible for about 3 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and nearly 9 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. transportation sector. " [2]

Sticking a container-size nuclear power plant into a plane of that size, yeah, with lots of parachutes or safety mechanisms, would be amazing.

Above a certain size, the plane would not have to be spending its energy, on carrying its energy (fuel.)

I can see that this is a visionary far-out ideal. Maybe they're afraid to bill it as such directly.

But then: what other use is there on Earth for a container-sized nuclear power plant? (Besides a ship or submarine.) The air (or space) is the only place with such ridiculous constraints.

And anyway I didn't come up with this "vision", the article literally mentioned it explicitly. I just supplied a link to it so you everyone could read through the article and data sheet for themselves.

[1] https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-does-fuel-cost-take-ou...

[2] https://www.c2es.org/content/reducing-carbon-dioxide-emissio...