Is it possible....

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by ALVIN, Mar 26, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. We all know that it is possible to build Nuclear powered subs and battleships right, but is it possible to build a Nuclear powered family car?

    Pro's....Once initially fueled at manufacture, it would never need refueling again.

    Con's....Car accidents with Nuclear powered engines on board.....Err...Need i say any more?
     
  2. The car would be abso-fucking-lutely HUGE!!
     
  3. Yes but there would be a slight weight/size problem the smallest vehical/ship/boat with nuclear power is a Los Angeles class nuke sub at 6.930 tons but it puts out 35,000 SHP
     
  4. The Ford Nucleon isn't that big...

    [​IMG]


    Scrapping could be an issue. Either it would cost a fortune to dispose of it safely, or you'd get a couple of hundred quid from a dodgy breaker with Middle Eastern links.
     
  5. More importantly could we smoke in it?
     
  6. You could make a hoofin VBIED :twisted: Meep Meep!
     
  7. Possibly not the smallest vehicle ... http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/bennett0706.pdf


    6 point 93 tons? with 35 000 SHP it must have a pretty impressive 0-60 time :D

    The idea's old hat though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

    What I think would work better is an engine along the lines of Project Orion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 :twisted:
     

  8. There are a number of smaller things like the US navy's NS1 spy sub but they all have shielding and safety problems
     
  9. Same problems the Russians faced with a nuclear plane.
     
  10. I can just hear the radio travel report "The M6 is closed due to a 400m wide pothole."

    :p :p :p

    Rodney2q
     
  11. You did overlook NR-1, the US Navy's smallest sub. It is 400 tons, 150 feet long and has a crew of 13. It is slow but goes to depths the Navy does not discuss. It was launched in 1969 and was deactivated late in 2008 but has not been scrapped yet. This is the vessel which recovered a lot of the pieces of the shuttle Challenger.

    Smaller but still a bit hard to fit in ones garage (or boathouse of whatever colour)
     
  12. It worked with this:

    [​IMG]
     
  13. I think that both the Russians and Americans got as far as putting a reactor into a plane but not as far as powering the engines using it. The plane could, in theory, remain aloft for weeks or months. This was in the days when in flight refuelling was only at the experimental stage so aircraft range was limited by the amount of fuel they could carry.

    Main problem was that an aircraft can't carry enough shielding to properly protect the crew from radiation. Proposed USAF solution was to recruit old guys who were past their child rearing years to be pilots on the basis that they wouldn't mind having their spuds fried by the radiation.

    Second problem was that piping air through the reactor to heat it made it intensely radioactive. The plane spewed fallout wherever it went. This was turned to an advantage by designing a pilot less cruise missile. Not only would it vapourise the city it was aimed at, it would irradiate everything it flew over on the way there too.

    There were a few small nuclear powered surface ships developed for the US Navy and, IIRC, one nuclear powered cargo ship for the merchant navy but they proved too expensive to run. Nuclear reactors are only used to drive ships with exceptional power needs like huge aircraft carriers and ice breakers.

    Who knows, as the oil runs out it may become economic to use nuclear power for surface ships again. Reactor Officer may yet become a rank in the Merchant Navy.