The Secret Nuclear Drone Tech Our Government Hid
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/sand-uav.pdf
Unmanned Air Vehicle Ultra-Persistence Research
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
Not really surprising. We looked at building a nuclear B52 in the 1950s. The technology for nuclear aircraft has been around for five to six decades. My primary concern - one mentioned in the article - would be a crash in unfriendly territory, where the reactor tech - or simply some enriched fuel for use in a dirty bomb - could be lifted by hostile elements.
My counter to the argument in the article is that drones have only crashed more than piloted planes in the last two decades because this is really the infancy of the technology. I don't really agree with that fear, but strategically it seems to be better to keep treating drones as cheap and expendable, and being able to shrug it off when one is shot down.
My counter to the argument in the article is that drones have only crashed more than piloted planes in the last two decades because this is really the infancy of the technology. I don't really agree with that fear, but strategically it seems to be better to keep treating drones as cheap and expendable, and being able to shrug it off when one is shot down.
While these statements no doubt include fission...
"Political realities" and "current political conditions" might also refer to not upsetting the petroleum conglomerate apple cart, not necessarily just fission issues.
In particular, quote 3 seems unlikely, if only fission was studied, since things like Project Pluto and SLAM are public knowledge.
The effort concentrated on propulsion and power technologies that went well beyond existing hydrocarbon technologies. It contrasted and compared eight heat sources technologies, three power conversion, two dual cycle propulsion system configurations, and a single electrical power generation scheme.
NGIS UMS was quite pleased with the results of analysis and design although it was disappointing to all that the political realities would not allow use of the results.
Currently, none of the results can be shared openly with the public due to national security constraints.
... I don't think one can conclude that only fission was studied.Industry now knows how significantly aerial operations can be improved by using these propulsion and power approaches even though current political conditions will not allow use of the results.
"Political realities" and "current political conditions" might also refer to not upsetting the petroleum conglomerate apple cart, not necessarily just fission issues.
In particular, quote 3 seems unlikely, if only fission was studied, since things like Project Pluto and SLAM are public knowledge.
Nuclear would include radioisotopes. I've read a concept for a radioisotope powered jet engine. Select something with a suitable combination of power output, lifetime, and low penetration radiation and you have a promising tech. One problem is that you can't just shut down a fueled engine. It has to keep going to cool itself.
The paper in the link is just that, paper.
If you want something that might actually fly, look up Aurora Flight Sciences Odysseus, a solar UAV with potential endurance of years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgVJa5x-R9w
If you prefer something that has already rolled out, maybe Aurora's Orion, which can stay up for 5 days.
http://www.aurora.aero/Products/Orion.aspx
For 9+ day endurance, this one is under construction:
http://www.mav6.com/Mav6-Blue-Devil-Airship.pdf
If you want something that might actually fly, look up Aurora Flight Sciences Odysseus, a solar UAV with potential endurance of years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgVJa5x-R9w
If you prefer something that has already rolled out, maybe Aurora's Orion, which can stay up for 5 days.
http://www.aurora.aero/Products/Orion.aspx
For 9+ day endurance, this one is under construction:
http://www.mav6.com/Mav6-Blue-Devil-Airship.pdf