ATOMIC JETS? - Yes! Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Concepts in the 1950s!

[@mikelynn4754]

Pretty scary to imagine all those radioactive exhaust fumes! Interesting and what wonderful models. Thanks as always Mike.

[@danf321]

All I can say is…Where DOES he get those wonderful toys???

[@SynapseDriven]

My thoughts exactly, I think they were conceptual models to pitch projects to the high brass, or something like that, if they are period pieces they are priceless memorabilia.

[@user-be2dt8eg2x]

Very impressive factory models. Seen photos of these in books but never "live". Nice.

[@mattdaugherty7865]

What a wonderful way to start a Monday! Mike, you’re a breath of fresh air on a stressful morning! Thank you, sir!

[@maxsmodels]

Mike, that is a fantastic video. I noticed that Convair was making all of the concept planes. Their design team seems to ride that fine edge between genius and insanity. I think the NX-2 is one of the most esthetically pleasing designs I have seen. Now I have to buy the kit of it by Fantastic Plastic. Ah, post WW2 America. We really believed we could do anything…and we have 6 flags on the moon and nuclear powered airplane designs to prove it….NOW WHERE’S MY JETPACK?

[@lancerevell5979]

The NX-2 looks like it came out of the "Johnny Quest" TV show. I could easily see Race Bannon in the pilot seat! 😎👍

[@scottfw7169]

Your jetpack is just another couple shelves down the aisle from your asbestos jockey shorts.

[@HootOwl513]

@@scottfw7169 *Lead-Lined* asbestos jockey shorts, if you were flying the NB-36 or NX-2.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Many thanks, and I met several Gloo Troopers at the LAX Airline Show Saturday (a real blow-out, incidentally) who said they'll come to visit at the Proud Bird Feb. 2nd!

[@chrismaxfield9123]

I had a physics professor in college that worked on the NB-36H. For the life of me I can’t remember his name, but he was a proud Texan that liked to remind us of every significant event in Texas history over the course of the semester. 😐

[@johnplaninac9980]

A very interesting video. Almost glowing. Great work by your team.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks very much John! 'Hope all's going better.

[@Robutube1]

Never less than interesting and often fascinating, Mike takes a subject like this and brings it to life - having those manufacturer's models (the dream of many a schoolboy) doesn't hurt either!

[@GustavoMonasterio]

It is excellent to start my week with a new and amazing video from you, Mike! Greetings from Brazil!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks, Gustavo!

[@antoniotrani6071]

Great program. Congratulations.

[@paulbervid1610]

Outstanding conversation

[@kirknewton100]

Mike, brilliant, really enjoyed this video. Full of interesting information.

[@jamescatrett2608]

Great episode, Mike. Beautiful Company / industry models. I remember a few concept models that you could buy (can't remember the company) that were proposed "nifty fifties" aircraft design.

[@alanclarke8493]

Hello Mike. Great video and models! I'm the person who showed you the photos of my house full models and toys at the LAX airline collector's show . Keep these great videos going!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Hi Alan, Great to meet you and see your photos Saturday! I'll bring my Ocean Liner material to the next show there on June 1st. Many thanks for watching the channel.

[@Wyliedawg]

Amazing video Mike, really well done Sir!

[@theoneandonlysoslappy]

Terrific episode!

[@GaryCSchade]

Very Well done indeed 👏🏼

[@glennweaver3014]

Great informative video Mike, And, those factory models are incredible and no doubt very valuable.

[@JeffYun]

Another great episode!

[@68orangecrate26]

Another fantastic presentation. Convair was such an impressive company…

[@craigw.scribner6490]

Thanks, Mike!

[@SMAZVidoes]

Very informative. Thanks

[@michaelsimonds2632]

Way Cool as always and thought provoking as well. Thanks!

[@chrisp1601]

Excellent video!

[@chuck9987]

Really great video about an often overlooked aspect of aviation history

[@craiglordable]

Amazing, thanks

[@brockjennings]

Great video to start the week

[@Randylewus1958]

Great video , thanks

[@HootOwl513]

Hi Mike. I was just at Pima Air and Space Museum Friday, guiding some UK friends. I stopped by the nose of the B-36J Peacemaker, ''City of Ft Worth'' -- like the example at frame [4:04]. That is one Big Dog!

[@zeroelus]

A different but very welcome format of video! Loved that we now saw built models vs the usual (fantastic) box cover art...and what a collection! Nice putting a face to the narration for us that haven't been to one of your presentations. I had heard of some (dirty exhaust) super/hypersonic nuclear fueled cruise missiles that would loiter above targets using the damage from their shockwave and their radioactive exhausts as a weapon, so I'm guessing it must have been something of a related development to the powerplant proposed in the NX-2? So many awesome developments and I have to say I like the look of the cockpit of the NB-36H more than the regular Peacemaker...though I'm happy that live nuclear reactors where never an airborne thing...I am a bit saddened though that the power of the atom seems to have such a bad PR and that it could be a legitimate clean fuel source (or at least a good interim measure while newer forms of energy are matured)but fear from a potential accident is such a political hot potato.

[@shenmisheshou7002]

The WS110 program that led to the XB-70 was actually a stop-gap plan that was only expected to be in service for 10 years while the nuclear bomber program was allowed to work though the issues of getting a practical nuclear weapon.

[@bertg.6056]

An outstanding presentation of an often-overlooked aspect of aircraft and powerplant development. Thanks, Mike !

[@abigaillilac1370]

Your videos are only getting better and better, this was a great one. 🎉

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Many thanks!

[@jamesjacola351]

Fantastic collection of models. I love that DC-10. Thank you for a great video.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@dahawk8574]

It would be worth mentioning the C-5 Galaxy that actually did launch an ICBM.

[@Palaemon44]

It was fun meeting Mike at the Airliner memorabilia swap meeting this weekend. I recently picked up a UK publication “Secret Cold War Designs 2 US Supersonic Bomber Projects” written by Scott Lowther who also does a lot of masters for limited run resin aircraft kits. Some chapters cover multiple nuclear powered bomber projects. Very nice line drawings and tech data. One scary detail I wasn’t aware of is that the planes needed crew shielding for the canopies in addition to the shielding behind the crew. Apparently the engines produce so much radiation that even what is scattered by the surrounding air back into the windshield is enough to be dangerous. Yikes!

[@cturdo]

Nuclear LongEZ! How cool!

[@wpiehl]

Hey Mike, I thought you had rejected the inter office memo stating "No model box art". When I saw this episode on Nuclear-Powered aircraft, I thought for sure you would mention the fabulous Hawk kit of the BETA-I atomic powered XAB-1. In the instruction sheet they explain in detail the operation of a Direct Cycle Nuclear Engine. It is one of my favorite kits of my collection. This episode needs model box art. Let me know if you need pictures of the kit. All the best ! Will

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for the comment, and because I was working at the LAX Airliner Show this weekend, I posted this prerecorded "In-Studio" episode before the rejected memo took effect. We'll be back to models next week, and thanks for watching!

[@Commander-McBragg]

Those models, though. Wow!

[@edj44]

Outstanding, as usual!!!

[@shadovanish7435]

Another great & interesting presentation! Those models are so cool, & very rare, I imagine, & evoke the "futuristic", from the '50's & early '60's perspective. My Dad was a Professor of Mechanical Engineering, & I remember seeing a techical publication years ago from Sandia Labs (I think) that was in a stack of other scientific & technical publications of my Dads, & the publication featured an engineering R&D analysis of using liquid metal (sodium, I believe) as a heat transfer medium (fluid) in nuclear aircraft engines (for the NX-2, or other nuclear powered aircraft proposal). From what I recall, the aircraft engines operated using superheated ram air, heated with the (previously mentioned) liquid sodium metal used as a heat transfer fluid moving between the reactor & a heat exchanger, which would have been located in the air inlet (intake) ducts for the aircraft's engines. The superheated air (with added energy) would then exhaust through a nozzle & create thrust...or something like that. Quite a concept, indeed. I don't know if the program ever advanced to an engine ground test phase, but I suppose it would have been difficult to do, without irradiating the surroundings.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

That is exactly correct, thanks!

[@Schlipperschlopper]

Germany in WW2 made a concept for a 6x steam turbine powered long range bomber, they wanted to install a miniaturized nuclear reactor in a Messerschmitt Gigant 321 transport plane for testing

[@newdefsys]

Awesome stuff, Mike. And its good to have a face to go with that smooth voice of yours.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Many thanks!

[@alanpareis734]

Thanks Mike for another great one on a subject I had heard of, but knew nothing about.

[@johnnyallred3753]

I enjoyed the video. Hay Mike how about a video on rocket engines you did the GE J79 among others.I was thinking of the XLR11 it was uses in the X-1 series an others like the X-15, there you have it. A idea for a future video maybe thanks !

[@misterjaxon2559]

I recall reading about one of these devices being dubbed "The Flying Crowbar" due to a possible use that would be very simple and very deadly. It would be part of the nuclear strike force, but after delivering its payload, it would drop whatever shielding it had around its core and continue to fly around at low altitude over the enemy's country spreading its radioactive exhaust over farm fields, population centers, transportation hubs; generally wherever people or the industries they depended upon were located. The strategic value of contaminating food supplies and exposing a few million civilians to varying degrees of radiation sickness is obvious.

[@WAL_DC-6B]

Jeez, those are some nice and of course rare U.S. military atomic powered aircraft models. They appear to be one of a kind (made of mostly wood?). Interesting history of these nuclear airplanes (especially that DC-10) and thanks for sharing!

[@deathsheadknight2137]

wow that MIRV is super cool. I'd love to take a more detailed look at that and the booklet

[@timothyboles6457]

Great video, there are several videos talking about the nuclear powered aircraft, and I guess the NB36 reactor still exists. I don't know if I had heard about the seaplane version before. And had never heard about the DC10 launch system. I don't know if you have talked about the cruise missle launching 747 before

[@HardcoreFourSix]

In 1982, as a young A1C, I read a large number of USAF published books and studies at the MHAFB library. One of them covered the nuclear powered aircraft project. I wonder about the new development of the micro-reactors that use much more safe reactor designs. Perhaps flying reactors could make a comeback.

[@ecidaho]

HI Mike great episode! I live in Idaho near the Idaho National Laboratory, and they have two of the test reactors built for aircraft use on display at the EBR-1 (Experimental Breeder Reactor) museum complex on INL grounds! They are impressive to see! Thanks for this video! Take care and all the best!

[@usaaircraft]

the best youtube channel!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@aramboodakian9554]

Mike ¿what does this video and other videos you have made have in common? They are all fantastic and fun!

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@edutaimentcartoys]

nice video

[@gizmophoto3577]

Several years ago, I saw two prototype nuclear engines on display at the Experimental Breeder Reactor-1 (EBR-1) site at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory outside of Idaho Falls. They are gargantuan machines which I presume were only test beds, as it is hard to see how they would ever fit in any airframe. From what I was told, the expected logistics for handling nuclear aircraft were daunting, to say the least. Ground service equipment would need to be operated remotely or be very heavily shielded. Aircraft storage was projected to require shielded buildings. I expect low level flight paths would need to be restricted to avoid irradiating people on the ground. Contamination in the event of a crash would be a significant problem and making the structure robust enough to withstand a flight accident would greatly increase weight. Having spent my career in the civilian nuclear power industry, I have a very hard time envisioning how any such machine could ever be made practical. I have a couple photos of the engines I can share with you, Mike, if you’re interested.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Maybe you're the one I should ask then? I understand how a Water Reactor works. How are they shoving enough air in this thing to air cool it?🤔☢

[@gizmophoto3577]

@@WALTERBROADDUS I can’t claim to know anything about those reactor designs, but you can be sure there is some very high capacity ventilation involved. It looks like Wikipedia has some basic information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion.

[@garfieldsmith332]

Fascinating Mr. Machat. I knew nothing about the US Nuclear aircraft projects. Still trying to figure out how the aircraft would be propelled. Hot air does not seem to me to be doable. Nuclear submarine basically run on electrical power created by steam, I believe. Never even considered the launch of ICBMs from air craft. And did not know that MIRV technology went back that far. Thanks again for a very informative history lesson.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for your question! In turbojets, extreme heat is produced in the combustion chambers and injected into compressed incoming airflow. With a nuclear engine, the reactor core contains Uranium 235 as fuel, and cadmium control rods. As the rods are withdrawn from the reactor, the process of fission reaches ‘critical mass,’ and tremendous heat is produced. This heat is conducted away from the reactor core by sodium fed through tubes. The hot sodium is then pumped to the heat exchanger much like a car’s radiator, transferring heat to the fuel/air mixture which turns compressor blades at the aft end of the engine completing the power cycle.

[@garfieldsmith332]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 So the reactor produces the heat to burn the fuel.

[@timwilkinsongs]

Another superb video. I'm very struck by the quality and style of the various "presentation models" you use. Might we have you make a video about these types of model?

[@apolloleader]

In the thumbnail that should say NB-36H not NB-136H. 🙂. Great video and good to see some of these original company models have survived.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

The novel *PRELUDE TO SPACE* by Arthur C. Clarke includes a space plane powered by an atomic ramjet.

[@viksaini]

Great program Mike! Now let's see one on electrogravitic propulsion prototypes. I know you have the models somewhere! 👽

[@mattblack9069]

The obvious question here is this:- Nuclear reactors are used conventionally to produce heat which then heats water for turbines of many types, so how does a nuclear reactor produce thrust to propel an aircraft forward?

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

The heat produced by the reactor would 'replace' the heat generated by burning jet fuel in the hot section of each gas turbine engine.

[@mattblack9069]

No wrong, the heat produced by a jet engine is the explosive event that produces thrust that turns the high-speed turbines that produce thrust. In the situation with a reactor, the heat produced is similar to latent heat and is used to heat a liquid like water so to utilize that heat you will need huge amounts of water and that water can only produce rotational movement not-high speed exhaust so how can it roduce high volume thrust.@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for your question! In turbojets, extreme heat is produced in the combustion chambers and injected into compressed incoming airflow. With a nuclear engine, the reactor core contains Uranium 235 as fuel, and cadmium control rods. As the rods are withdrawn from the reactor, the process of fission reaches ‘critical mass,’ and tremendous heat is produced. This heat is conducted away from the reactor core by sodium fed through tubes. The hot sodium is then pumped to the heat exchanger much like a car’s radiator, transferring heat to the fuel/air mixture which turns compressor blades at the aft end of the engine completing the power cycle.

[@無我-u3d]

Chad was sold the NX-2 model in Bonhams .

[@Nedski42YT]

Did the government have a code phrase for the loss of a nuclear powered aircraft like they did for lost nuclear weapons? A hypothetical frightening news headline might be "Nuclear Quiver loses multiple Broken Arrows."

[@jim5870]

I wish i could find out more about the ASTR reactor, I wonder where they buried it.?

[@dhroman4564]

Great video. Would like to know how the jet engines worked.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for your question! In turbojets, extreme heat is produced in the combustion chambers and injected into compressed incoming airflow. With a nuclear engine, the reactor core contains Uranium 235 as fuel, and cadmium control rods. As the rods are withdrawn from the reactor, the process of fission reaches ‘critical mass,’ and tremendous heat is produced. This heat is conducted away from the reactor core by sodium fed through tubes. The hot sodium is then pumped to the heat exchanger much like a car’s radiator, transferring heat to the fuel/air mixture which turns compressor blades at the aft end of the engine completing the power cycle.

[@davidkatz9014]

What about the proposed Soviet "Atomic powered, Delta wing, 4 engine" bomber of the late 1950's . I remember building the model in the fall of 1960. I don't remember the name but I think one conventionally powered version was built and flown over Red Square. I think it's on display somewhere in Russia.

[@oxxnarrdflame8865]

As a kid I got a plastic model kit of a nuclear bomber. I was always puzzled on how it would work.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

In turbojets, extreme heat is produced in the combustion chambers and injected into compressed incoming airflow. With a nuclear engine, the reactor core contains Uranium 235 as fuel, and cadmium control rods. As the rods are withdrawn from the reactor, the process of fission reaches ‘critical mass,’ and tremendous heat is produced. This heat is conducted away from the reactor core by sodium fed through tubes. The hot sodium is then pumped to the heat exchanger much like a car’s radiator, transferring heat to the fuel/air mixture which turns compressor blades at the aft end of the engine completing the power cycle. Thanks for watching!

[@oxxnarrdflame8865]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782thanks 👍

[@lancerevell5979]

I hate to think of an Atomic Powered Bomber being shotdown over a populated area, or having a catastrophic crash! 😮

[@barrygrant2907]

One of the various reasons the program was scraped.

[@jwoody8815]

Subbed and liked. A++

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Awesome thank you!

[@Flaviosilva-lg5rk]

Im not been nostalgic, those design are classic but not old or overpassed by entropy project drag or estrutural issues. Propelers aircraft from 50s or 60th were actualy, indeed, more eficient, more beautifull than modernity ones, my opinion. Comparing pound per pound and trhust, were even better than nowdays ones. Were great project. You showed what a 707 can lift within 54,s lbs. Imagine a remake of a profitable brand new Constalation, for instance, i say would be great to be a passanger in. I really apreciate you work, can feel passion about.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Agreed on the nostalgia aspect, and really appreciate the comment, thanks!

[@dave8599]

On the title page it is written NB 136H. Is that a typo?

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Yes! Our Copy Editor has been fired.

[@johnreep5798]

How did the reactor produce thrust?

[@deathsheadknight2137]

the reactor basically sends heat directly to heat sinks in the engine "combustion" chamber, atmospheric air passes over the heat sinks, becoming hot and expanding rapidly out the back of the nozzle.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Yes, that is exactly correct, thanks! We'll be doing a follow-up video explaining this in more detail.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for your question! In turbojets, extreme heat is produced in the combustion chambers and injected into compressed incoming airflow. With a nuclear engine, the reactor core contains Uranium 235 as fuel, and cadmium control rods. As the rods are withdrawn from the reactor, the process of fission reaches ‘critical mass,’ and tremendous heat is produced. This heat is conducted away from the reactor core by sodium fed through tubes. The hot sodium is then pumped to the heat exchanger much like a car’s radiator, transferring heat to the fuel/air mixture which turns compressor blades at the aft end of the engine completing the power cycle.

[@MrTomcat104]

I always wondered what would happened had a nuclear-powered plane crash...especially at a populated location?

[@markbernero9302]

It's a shame that the decals turned yellow on those old models! It would be nice if new ones could be created and the planes restored to original appearance.

[@chuck9987]

That was the problem or one of them. The heat from the reactor was used to superheat the air. This resulted in a lot of radioactive emissions released. The closed cycle alternative was complex and not nearly as efficient as the direct cycle GE. All of this ignores the issues of the plane crashing and the release of radiation from the breakup of the reactor. Not to worry, the resesrch will be used to propel the manned mars missions. It would take six months to get to Mars on chemical rockets. It will take about six weeks with a nuclear based rocket. Six months is too long for deep space exposure to radiation. The crew would likely succumb to radiation sickness. We tend to ignore how much protection our atmosphere and magnetosphere protect us from hard solar radiation.

[@cassgraham7058]

As a nuclear propulsion geek ( Beyond NERVA), in atmosphere nuclear propulsion was always doomed. Even if you have great reactor- centric shielding, atmospheric backscatter was a lethal problem for the crew - ignoring the impacts to everyone around. This includes aneutronic reactions of all types, due to gamma flux. The ANP showed how much of a toll gamma radiation shielding took on aircraft mass, and scaling went badly. I love seeing these old concepts, but... yeah. Better off dead, even from an astronuke like me.

[@dusterowner9978]

What would have been the propulsion produce by the reactor to move a plane ???

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for your question! In turbojets, extreme heat is produced in the combustion chambers and injected into compressed incoming airflow. With a nuclear engine, the reactor core contains Uranium 235 as fuel, and cadmium control rods. As the rods are withdrawn from the reactor, the process of fission reaches ‘critical mass,’ and tremendous heat is produced. This heat is conducted away from the reactor core by sodium fed through tubes. The hot sodium is then pumped to the heat exchanger much like a car’s radiator, transferring heat to the fuel/air mixture which turns compressor blades at the aft end of the engine completing the power cycle.

[@BillJobs01]

In the flesh!

[@jetsons101]

Mike, another homerun of a video. But flying around with Nuclear-Powered aircraft with1950's technology --- not a very good idea...... Mike, thanks for your time, work and posting.

[@pat8988]

Why in the world did the B-35 have a 6 inch thick windshield when all the radiation was coming from behind them?

[@rbrtjbarber]

I could never figure out how they were going to make it work, to convert nuclear energy into jet thrust...

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for your question! In turbojets, extreme heat is produced in the combustion chambers and injected into compressed incoming airflow. With a nuclear engine, the reactor core contains Uranium 235 as fuel, and cadmium control rods. As the rods are withdrawn from the reactor, the process of fission reaches ‘critical mass,’ and tremendous heat is produced. This heat is conducted away from the reactor core by sodium fed through tubes. The hot sodium is then pumped to the heat exchanger much like a car’s radiator, transferring heat to the fuel/air mixture which turns compressor blades at the aft end of the engine completing the power cycle.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

Ohhhhh My God......🤯 "No Bucks, No Buck Rodgers...." I am still trying to wrap my head arround a air cooled reactor?☢ I get how subs and ships make steam to run a turbine. But fuzzy how the plane gets thrust?🤔 So... rather than combust fuel and air. It is making super hot air for thrust?🛫

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for your question! In turbojets, extreme heat is produced in the combustion chambers and injected into compressed incoming airflow. With a nuclear engine, the reactor core contains Uranium 235 as fuel, and cadmium control rods. As the rods are withdrawn from the reactor, the process of fission reaches ‘critical mass,’ and tremendous heat is produced. This heat is conducted away from the reactor core by sodium fed through tubes. The hot sodium is then pumped to the heat exchanger much like a car’s radiator, transferring heat to the fuel/air mixture which turns compressor blades at the aft end of the engine completing the power cycle.

[@YYZ-SRQ]

still don't understand how the reactor is going to power the jets. Basically a reactor generates heat and boils water to make steam to turn a turbine or to turn a generator to make electricity . Don't see how this is going to get the plane off the ground

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Thanks for your question! In turbojets, extreme heat is produced in the combustion chambers and injected into compressed incoming airflow. With a nuclear engine, the reactor core contains Uranium 235 as fuel, and cadmium control rods. As the rods are withdrawn from the reactor, the process of fission reaches ‘critical mass,’ and tremendous heat is produced. This heat is conducted away from the reactor core by sodium fed through tubes. The hot sodium is then pumped to the heat exchanger much like a car’s radiator, transferring heat to the fuel/air mixture which turns compressor blades at the aft end of the engine completing the power cycle.

[@lnchgj]

Reality check. (BTW, I’ve very pro nuclear) Weapons excluded, every existing application of nuclear power today is just heating the tea-kettle, making steam. Power conversion notwithstanding, ships and aircraft have different power demands. While the USS Nautilus used 13,400hp, the B-36 used 45,600hp to get airborne and maintain 230mph (albeit at 43,600ft). Now the reactor the NB-36 carried produced 1 Megawatt (4:50), that’s equivalent to 1,341hp, or about 37% of the hp from just one of the R4360 gasoline engines. Could the B-36 even taxi with such power? I'm guessing this had something to do with the decision to terminate the programs.

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

The NB-36H was strictly an airborne testbed large enough to actually carry a reactor. Operationally, in turbojets, extreme heat is produced in the combustion chambers and injected into compressed incoming airflow. With a nuclear engine, the reactor core contains Uranium 235 as fuel, and cadmium control rods. As the rods are withdrawn from the reactor, the process of fission reaches ‘critical mass,’ and tremendous heat is produced. This heat is conducted away from the reactor core by sodium fed through tubes. The hot sodium is then pumped to the heat exchanger much like a car’s radiator, transferring heat to the fuel/air mixture which turns compressor blades at the aft end of the engine completing the power cycle.

[@Spadeparade-xu9jl]

@@celebratingaviationwithmik9782 Good evening, I’m an airline pilot and I sat next to a gentleman going to an AFB and discussed engines with him as he has worked at the top two plane engine manufacturers for large aircraft as an engineer aka not Lycoming and continental. We discussed quite a lot of theory and I had a lot of questions to say the least. I told him my families background in aviation and some other things as well. We both knew about classified things and what we could and couldn’t say but he said just give it twenty years and you’ll probably hear about planes with nuclear engines. I just smiled and said so we’ve been doing it for 30 years already, got it. Then I said I figured that’s how we’d power our space craft since space is cold and we could use that “air” to cool the reactor. He looked at me and smiled and then I said I have a theory about space. It all starts with our ability to see things on a certain scope from big to small, past to future, etc. the smallest thing we can see is an atom essentially, the largest thing we’ve seen is the Hubble deep space images of thousands of galaxies. Things could infinitely get smaller and larger but we don’t know how big or small. I said I think of people as atoms on the planet or on this cell. You go into space and seeing people from space would just be like seeing atoms on a person. What if planets and stars were cells in space and black holes were really just openings of a vein or artery that would lead us to another part of the living thing. He said I’ve never even thought about it like that but honestly that makes a lot of sense. I could see his mind working and I just smiled and said well maybe I’ll see you on a Janet jet sometime. He turned and looked at me real quick and I just smiled. Needless to say I’ve had family out there.