Well the idea has been put forth again. Building and using nuclear powered aircraft, one of the worst ideas in the history of man. Can you imagine a nuclear powered plane crashing? Can we ever be sure that a nuclear powered reactor can survive a crash? I don't think so. Even if we could guarantee it then we are insuring that an enemy country who can shoot down one of these aircraft, and some will be shot down, will get nuclear material. The U.S. government states that they have a new type of reactor that can not produce weapons grade material and operates on the principle of x-rays bombarding a material thus causing gamma rays. And the government is happy over another point. The nuclear material used in the reactor is said to have a half life of only 37 years. Wow we can now pollute somewhere for only 74 years instead of 10,000. Yes this is an improvement but one of these crashes would still be a tragedy of monster proportions. Can you imagine not being able to use maybe a hundred city blocks in the heart of a big city because of nuclear contamination?

Global Hawk
Picture Source: US Air Force

There is a story about the newest nuclear plane concept in this month's Popular Mechanics. According to the article the reactor will be fitted to a Global Hawk which has been modified with heavy shielding. The Hawk could remain in the sky for months at a time with needing fuel. The Global Hawk is a pilotless spy drone that can carry weapons. You can see how the military finds this concept very hard to resist. Its bad enough when nuclear powered satellites come crashing back to Earth as one did several years ago in Canada but can you imagine all the war planes going nuclear? The idea of nuclear powered aircraft goes way back, over 64 years. In 1945 Newsweek published a drawing of a nuclear powered flying wing concept. Even in 1941 Popular Mechanics Magazine had a story about creating a nuclear powered flying wing that would use U-235. Rumors abounded that the Soviets were testing a nuclear powered bomber in 1958. Studies showed that only the biggest of planes could carry a nuclear reactor at the time but these planes would be slow.

Aircraft Reactor Experiment
Picture Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

A plan was submitted that called for a nuclear powered plane that would be crewless. It would tow other planes with crews, thus saving their fuel for the flight over the target. In 1952 a plan had also been put forward by Northrop for a nuclear powered bomber with six fighters attached to it for defense. In 1952 General Electric designed a nuclear power plant for the YB-60 prototype. It had four nuclear engines that put out about the same thrust as eight conventional J57 jet engines which were on the Boeing XB-52. It is claimed that none of these planes flew with the nuclear engines.In 1953 Secretary of Defense, Charles Wilson cancelled the ANP (United States Air Force's Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion ) Program. Was there another secret program in the wings, who can really say?

Tower for testing shielding for reactors
Picture Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Another point that wasn't mentioned about nuclear aircraft is what happens when they are forced down intact or almost intact. Would it be possible for an enemy to now reverse engineer their own nuclear powered aircraft? In this day and age, you bet it would. I wonder how many people remember the U.S. surveillance plane that made an emergency landing in Chinese territory and was kept there for several days before being released. You can bet that every bit of that plane was analyzed, and wouldn't we do the same thing? Before you know it there would be nuclear powered planes flying all over the place from every country. No matter how practical nuclear power look for planes and rockets it is really impractical. The dangers are just too great.