Why There Are No Nuclear Airplanes

[Marlin]

Yeah I know, you win,.....

You and Schwartz, the Greenpeace affiliated sociologist cum self made  nuclear expert with a history of embellishment for effect, who was not even born while Kennedy was alive,....

Your citation       

[hamsamich]

I guess the weight and issue of WHERE the shielding has to be (alot of weight in one little area), as well as there may not be enough of it is what I'm talking about....but yeah the weight of the reactor compounds things.  My thing is the shielding is just a crazy variable that  has to be put there on top of the rest of the crazy construction of this monstrosity and who knows if it is even enough.  i will concede that maybe the shielding wasn't the biggest factor...but I will still lean in that direction that it probably was.  Hard to figure out what reality was in 1950s today.  The reason I fall in that direction is I think if it weren't for the problem with keeping the crew protected from the radiation you could have built the thing WAY easier and cheaper....so much more flexibility.

When I went to SanO and talked to a couple of the engineers about what really went down and why it would never restart...it opened my eyes even wider to the politics behind all this stuff...nothing is as it seems until you dig...so yeah I am opinionated about some things and try to read between the lines.

[Marlin]

I guess the weight and issue of WHERE the shielding has to be (alot of weight in one little area), as well as there may not be enough of it is what I'm talking about....but yeah the weight of the reactor compounds things.  My thing is the shielding is just a crazy variable that  has to be put there on top of the rest of the crazy construction of this monstrosity and who knows if it is even enough.  i will concede that maybe the shielding wasn't the biggest factor...but I will still lean in that direction that it probably was.  Hard to figure out what reality was in 1950s today.  The reason I fall in that direction is I think if it weren't for the problem with keeping the crew protected from the radiation you could have built the thing WAY easier and cheaper....so much more flexibility.

When I went to SanO and talked to a couple of the engineers about what really went down and why it would never restart...it opened my eyes even wider to the politics behind all this stuff...nothing is as it seems until you dig...so yeah I am opinionated about some things and try to read between the lines.

   I don't disagree that it was a factor but not the factor. I have read some of the old papers by the scientists from the 40s and 50s, Fellowships here in Oak Ridge are named after them. The shielding was considered feasible when the two tiered shield was adopted, two because there was a concern for irradiation of equipment then addition shielding for the crew. It was only then that they started work on the reactor. The plane flew with a smaller reactor and shielding though the reactor was operated for feasibility reasons and did not power the plane. It was found at that time that a much large reactor would be needed and that would require a much larger more expensive air frame.

All of the points made by you and GLW are all valid points individually but the cap sigma reason is "cost and risk". It was even proposed that the plane only be flown out of an island away from the general populous.

[GLW]

.......but the cap sigma reason is "cost and risk". .....

that's really a hard sell in light of all the flying nuclear materials the government was not risk adverse to,....

http://mentalfloss.com/article/17483/8-nuclear-weapons-us-has-lost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-air_collision

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.shtml

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/01/21/cataclysmic-cargo-the-hunt-for-four-missing-nuclear-bombs-after-a-b-52-crash/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c99061c026da


going back to your first statement of cause,...

That is not why it was canceled. The towers to test the plane shielding are still up out at ORNL. Think crash.

[Marlin]

that's really a hard sell in light of all the flying nuclear materials the government was not risk adverse to,....

http://mentalfloss.com/article/17483/8-nuclear-weapons-us-has-lost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-air_collision

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.shtml

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/01/21/cataclysmic-cargo-the-hunt-for-four-missing-nuclear-bombs-after-a-b-52-crash/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c99061c026da


going back to your first statement of cause,...

   As long as the discussion is about who is right and not what is right there will not be a agree to disagree moment.     My comment was in response to a comment that the shield was the problem, in the process of building/designing the plane they felt that it was addressed and moved forward but in the end it was the overall cost of everything and the risk to the public that killed it.

[GLW]

   As long as the discussion is about who is right and not what is right there will not be a agree to disagree moment.     My comment was in response to a comment that the shield was the problem, in the process of building/designing the plane they felt that it was addressed and moved forward but in the end it was the overall cost of everything and the risk to the public that killed it.

Show me the contemporary citations citing public safety.....

[Marlin]

Show me the contemporary citations citing public safety.....

Probably the one you posted then derided.   

[GLW]

Probably the one you posted then derided.   

there are none,...

the ANP ran from 1946 to 1961,...

the vast majority of print pieces discussing the "safety" issue as it has evolved here were written 20 plus years after the ANP was cancelled,...

often written by people who were not alive when the ANP was cancelled,...

the "safety" contention vis a vis the ANP is contrived, written after Three Mile Island, written after several Broken Arrows, often written after Chernobyl and lately after Fukushima,....

written by people who speculate that "safety" had to be part of the equation because they believe "safety" vis a vis anything nuclear (nuclear is bad, inherently unsafe and never worth the risk) as a de facto sempiternal premise,...

you may never find that contemporary citation because the guys who fought the Nazi's fanatics and the Emperor's fanatics did not frame the term "safe" the same way the aforementioned weenie warriors frame the term "safe",...

[Marlin]

there are none,...

the ANP ran from 1946 to 1961,...

the vast majority of print pieces discussing the "safety" issue as it has evolved here were written 20 plus years after the ANP was cancelled,...

often written by people who were not alive when the ANP was cancelled,...

the "safety" contention vis a vis the ANP is contrived, written after Three Mile Island, written after several Broken Arrows, often written after Chernobyl and lately after Fukushima,....

written by people who speculate that "safety" had to be part of the equation because they believe "safety" vis a vis anything nuclear (nuclear is bad, inherently unsafe and never worth the risk) as a de facto sempiternal premise,...

you may never find that contemporary citation because the guys who fought the Nazi's fanatics and the Emperor's fanatics did not frame the term "safe" the same way the aforementioned weenie warriors frame the term "safe",...

Your post makes no sense you must be trolling.

[GLW]

Your post makes no sense you must be trolling.

no Marlin, my post makes a lot of sense,...

read it slower,...

there are no ANP contemporary citations which will assert the ANP was cancelled because the DoD and the USAF were concerned about reactors crashing on top of civilians heads,....

[Marlin]

no Marlin, my post makes a lot of sense,...

read it slower,...

there are no ANP contemporary citations which will assert the ANP was cancelled because the DoD and the USAF were concerned about reactors crashing on top of civilians heads,....

I assume you will continue to re-frame your question until you find an angle where you can claim you are right.

[Marlin]

Again from a citation in your post.

But by the end of the decade, advances in conventional aircraft and engine design outmoded the atom-powered B-36 and the public became concerned about the dangers of a nuclear reactor flying overhead.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-powered-aircraft/

[hamsamich]

I think it is hard to compare the word safety and risk in 1955 to the words today.  Not because we are so much safer today but because safety is such a hot button word and has been climbing in importance to either be safe or look like you are making "safe" decisions.  I think you have to put your self in a 1955 state of mind as a hi level tech-bureaucrat .   Hard to do.  That's why I believe what I believe, because it is really hard to find an answer that satisfies because the people making decisiions back then were in a totally different world and the things they said had a different connotation.  My gut tells me what would have happened in the 50s if there were no shielding issues at all.  There is plenty of data that says it was just cost and safety, but behind those 2 words people love to throw out as reasons to stop a program is the real truth.  As I found out at SanO.

[GLW]

I assume you will continue to re-frame your question until you find an angle where you can claim you are right.

that's you projecting,....

Again from a citation in your post.

But by the end of the decade, advances in conventional aircraft and engine design outmoded the atom-powered B-36 and the public became concerned about the dangers of a nuclear reactor flying overhead.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-powered-aircraft/

exactly my conclusion,....

the Scientific American article is from 2008,...

the article includes numerous links to substantiate all the claims of the author,...

not a single one of which references any source contemporary to the ANP (1946-1961) which substantiates your claims that there was concern about reactors falling out of the sky,....

there is a gem in there though if you look for facts as opposed to conjectural supposition,....

the only link in that full article that was worth much was the actual ANP link,...

which is a great link if you survive your eyes glazing over due to the wretched legion of dull engineering speak,...

if you read the ANP link you will find this:

"Convair's successful flight program with the B-36 carrying a flight test reactor (July 1955 - March 1957)" showed that the "aircraft normally would pose no threat, even if flying low. The principal concerns would be: (a) accidents which cause the release of fission products from the reactors, and (b) the dosage from exposure to leakage radioactivity (in the direct cycle concept).[14]

It was decided that the risks caused by radiation were no greater than the risks that had been incurred during the development of steam and electric power, the airplane, the automobile, or the rocket.[15]"

the above was written in 1960,...

which is what would have been part of the information presented to JFK, and is why "safety" is not part of the decision to cancel the ANP,...


the ANP was not cancelled (in any degree) because of concerns of nuclear material falling on people's heads,...


the ANP was cancelled because it was a failure, it was OBE,...

your "safety" tidbits are fictions, written by people who:

...... speculate that "safety" had to be part of the equation because they believe "safety" vis a vis anything nuclear (nuclear is bad, inherently unsafe and never worth the risk) as a de facto sempiternal premise,...

they make it up, they put in their printed conjectures and it becomes "bible" because it is written,....


written by good, moral people, who care,...


you know my type:

"there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right",...


I do not have to win, you just have to show me I am wrong,...

show me one citation between 1946 and 1961 (that's the definition of contemporary) where the ANP was cancelled in some small degree because the risk from nuclear material falling on people's heads was outside the bounds of acceptable safety,....

there is not one,...

the risk was acceptable, if the risk is acceptable, it is safe,...

[GLW]

I think it is hard to compare the word safety and risk in 1955 to the words today.  Not because we are so much safer today but because safety is such a hot button word and has been climbing in importance to either be safe or look like you are making "safe" decisions.  I think you have to put your self in a 1955 state of mind as a hi level tech-bureaucrat .   Hard to do.  That's why I believe what I believe, because it is really hard to find an answer that satisfies because the people making decisiions back then were in a totally different world and the things they said had a different connotation.  My gut tells me what would have happened in the 50s if there were no shielding issues at all.  There is plenty of data that says it was just cost and safety, but behind those 2 words people love to throw out as reasons to stop a program is the real truth.  As I found out at SanO.

JFK summed it up really well in 1961,....

a billion dollars,...

15 years,...

it still don't work,...

throw it out,....

imagine what he would have done with government funded fusion research had he served 2 full terms,....

[fiveeleven]

If you guys were not ELT's - ya dang sure shoulda been.

[Marlin]

 

I assume you will continue to re-frame your question until you find an angle where you can claim you are right.

[Marlin]

If you guys were not ELT's - ya dang sure shoulda been.

ELiTe   

[GLW]

I assume you will continue to re-frame your question until you find an angle where you can claim you are right.

really Marlin?!?!


okay,...


here is the question the first time:

Show me the contemporary citations citing public safety.....

here it is the second time:

show me one citation between 1946 and 1961 (that's the definition of contemporary) where the ANP was cancelled in some small degree because the risk from nuclear material falling on people's heads was outside the bounds of acceptable safety,....

this is your statement as to why the ANP was cancelled:

That is not why it was canceled. The towers to test the plane shielding are still up out at ORNL. Think crash.

then you ended up here:

All true but the advantage of long flight times was  the reason it was even considered. Cost and risk to the public were the primary reasons It was cancelled.

cost is easy to prove, I proved cost, with citations from 1961,...


risk to the public?!?!?


there's nothing,....


you cannot find anything,...


except unsubstantiated fantasy projections written by people 25 plus years later,...

[GLW]

except unsubstantiated fantasy projections written by people 25 plus years later,...

aka revisionism,....

[hamsamich]

I feel there is no real resolution here because there is no definitive answer to be found.  Kinda like why were we in the Vietnam war and what our objective was.  People can argue about that one all day and support it from all different sides but you really just have to make a judgment call based on mounds of conflicting data.  Revisionism is in the eye of the beholder if the accepted point of view is in question.

[Marlin]

I feel there is no real resolution here because there is no definitive answer to be found.  Kinda like why were we in the Vietnam war and what our objective was.  People can argue about that one all day and support it from all different sides but you really just have to make a judgment call based on mounds of conflicting data.  Revisionism is in the eye of the beholder if the accepted point of view is in question.

Perhaps, but my point was that though there were many contributing reasons each was part of the whole. I got a little tired of being required to provide specifics with none coming the other way. I have done a lot of reading on this subject in the past including one that stated it was suggested that the plane be flown from an island to avoid flying over population and wish I could remember were they were but am not that invested in this to do any more. That there is no single definitive reason for it's demise only a larger summation of them.

[GLW]

......That there is no single definitive reason for it's demise only a larger summation of them.

yes, there is, documented for all posterity,...

....the March 28, 1961 defense budget message to Congress, Item 5., which killed the atomic plane.....

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ppotpus/4730886.1961.001/297?page=root;size=100;view=image

[hamsamich]

ummmmmmmm  from one of my earlier posts...and my thing has always been why didn't we build one on the same time schedule as a nuclear sub BEFORE 1961.  I'm looking for real data from the people who were involved not a blanket statement from the president about why it was shutdown.  useful info but not usually the real technical reason behind why it was shutdown.  I guess we aren't on the same page with that, which is why I stopped posting any specifics.  You are looking for blanket statements from politicians, I am looking for something different.  Which is fine for you...if that is what satisfies you the most I don't blame you.  That is what most people want.   But for me, most of the specifics you posted were of little interest to me, except the one about reactor weight, which made me think.


From my earlier post

Here is yet another quote of what the planners were up against even after coming up with something they thought might work:

"Another decision involved the crew, for although the shield tests accomplished all of their goals, it was still felt that some mildly harmful radiation may reach the crew. This begot a plan which in hindsight look rather ridiculous, although at the time it was quite serious."

"While most of the intellectual effort devoted to solving these problems was of the usual serious and straight forward kind, occasionally some bizarre proposals arose. One which was discussed quite seriously was that older men (i.e., men beyond the usual age for begetting children) should be used as pilots so that genetic damage from radiation would be held to a minimum and because older people are generally more resistant to radiation than younger ones."

York, Herbert Frank, Race to Oblivion, (Simon and Schuster: New York, 1970), 62-63

[GLW]

ummmmmmmm  from one of my earlier posts...and my thing has always been why didn't we build one on the same time schedule as a nuclear sub BEFORE 1961......

because Rickover had his act together and dozens of USAF generals did not,....

the ANP was OBE,...

too bad, so sad,...


[youtube height=200 width=400]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzp2d-zoV1U[/youtube]