Re: Airplane crash

["Michael P. Grissom" <mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

To add to Frank's Comment,

There were two projects related to nuclear powered aircraft/rockets, 
one was Project Rover (I don't recall title of the other one--which was 
the main program...).  Both utilized the extensive facilities at the Nevada 
Test Site (Jackass Flats).

The "wing" was so unstable that using conventional engine systems
led to cancellation of the project (some of those design features later
reappeared, however, with the Stealth program...).

Although the thrust demonstrations at Jackass Flats demonstrated
plenty of power, the political problems of using nuclear power for
aircraft platforms (and their susceptibility to crash accidents) 
ultimately led to cancellation of the projects.  It is interesting to note 
that some renewed interest has been indicated over the last few years, 
however, particularly for deep space manned missions.

If this story is true, the specific event would have been highly
classified...and it would NOT have been a Nautilus type PWR!

S.,

MikeG.

At 11:49 AM 2/25/97 -0600, you wrote:
>> Date:          Tue, 25 Feb 97 10:54:37 -0600
>> Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>> From:          Les Fraley <les@lamar.ColoState.EDU>
>> To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>> Subject:       Airplane crash
>
>>   I am trying to locate information about the crash of a nuclear powered
>> airplane that occurred in the mid '50s and the estimated dose to a ...
>	Something sounds fishy there. I remember reading an article,
>	(actually a graduate thesis,) reviewing studies about atomic
>	powered aircraft. We only got to the stage of firing up a
>	couple of stationary test motors, and found the whole design
>	quite impractical, and quite unshieldable, even by 1950's standards.
>
>
>	Any possible use of a Nautilus-class reactor to produce power
>	would never have produced enough energy to get a flying wing
>	off the ground. The peak-power versus weight of any reactor
>	based system is 1-2 orders of magnitude lower than conventional
>	piston or jet engines. Only when you factor in the relative weight
>	of 2 years worth of fuel supply do the two propulsion systems
>	become relatively even, and even then only for vehicles the size
>	of a submarine on up.
>
>Frank R. Borger - Physicist - Center for Radiation Therapy
>net: Frank@rover.uchicago.edu   ph: 312-791-8075 fa: 791-3697



-----------------------
Michael P. Grissom
Assistant Director (ES&H) 
SLAC
mikeg@slac.stanford.edu
Phone:  (415) 926-2346
Fax:    (415) 926-3030