the return of the nuclear-powered aircraft

[Prowlus]

looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their UAVS

http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.phtml

Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?

[B2431]

>From: (Prowlus)
>Date: 6/12/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their UAVS
>
>http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.phtml
>
>Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?


It's Popular Mechanics, I wouldn't count on the story being anything more than
an over active imagination. I put it in the same category as the laser tank
they had a "photograph" of in 1970 or 1972.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >From: (Prowlus)
> >Date: 6/12/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their UAVS
> >
> >http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.phtml
> >
> >Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?
>
> It's Popular Mechanics, I wouldn't count on the story being anything more than
> an over active imagination. I put it in the same category as the laser tank
> they had a "photograph" of in 1970 or 1972.

PS isn't *always* wrong; this might actually turn out to be something
useful.

<http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993406>
<http://www.utdallas.edu/research/quantum/Tutorial.htm>

[Bob Urz]

Steve Hix wrote:

> In article >,
> (B2431) wrote:
>
>
>>>From: (Prowlus)
>>>Date: 6/12/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their UAVS
>>>
>>>http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.phtml
>>>
>>>Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?
>>
>>It's Popular Mechanics, I wouldn't count on the story being anything more than
>>an over active imagination. I put it in the same category as the laser tank
>>they had a "photograph" of in 1970 or 1972.
>
>
> PS isn't *always* wrong; this might actually turn out to be something
> useful.
>
> <http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993406>
> <http://www.utdallas.edu/research/quantum/Tutorial.htm>

Hell, they had a write-up on the SLAM 30 years ago or so.
And some of that even got to prototype stage. The reactor is
probably buried in the desert somewhere. Great UAV. It did not
need bombs. It was the ultimate dirty moving bomb.

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Bob Urz > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > (B2431) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>From: (Prowlus)
> >>>Date: 6/12/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
> >>>Message-id: >
> >>>
> >>>looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their
> >>>UAVS
> >>>
> >>>http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.phtm
> >>>l
> >>>
> >>>Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?
> >>
> >>It's Popular Mechanics, I wouldn't count on the story being anything more
> >>than
> >>an over active imagination. I put it in the same category as the laser
> >>tank
> >>they had a "photograph" of in 1970 or 1972.
> >
> >
> > PS isn't *always* wrong; this might actually turn out to be something
> > useful.
> >
> > <http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993406>
> > <http://www.utdallas.edu/research/quantum/Tutorial.htm>
>
> Hell, they had a write-up on the SLAM 30 years ago or so.
> And some of that even got to prototype stage. The reactor is
> probably buried in the desert somewhere. Great UAV. It did not
> need bombs. It was the ultimate dirty moving bomb.

Was that one Project Pluto?

Ick.

[David E. Powell]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Bob Urz > wrote:
>
> > Steve Hix wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > (B2431) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>From: (Prowlus)
> > >>>Date: 6/12/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
> > >>>Message-id: >
> > >>>
> > >>>looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of
their
> > >>>UAVS
> > >>>
> >
>>>http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.ph
tm
> > >>>l
> > >>>
> > >>>Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?
> > >>
> > >>It's Popular Mechanics, I wouldn't count on the story being anything
more
> > >>than
> > >>an over active imagination. I put it in the same category as the
laser
> > >>tank
> > >>they had a "photograph" of in 1970 or 1972.
> > >
> > > PS isn't *always* wrong; this might actually turn out to be something
> > > useful.
> > >
> > > <http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993406>
> > > <http://www.utdallas.edu/research/quantum/Tutorial.htm>
> >
> > Hell, they had a write-up on the SLAM 30 years ago or so.
> > And some of that even got to prototype stage. The reactor is
> > probably buried in the desert somewhere. Great UAV. It did not
> > need bombs. It was the ultimate dirty moving bomb.
>
> Was that one Project Pluto?

Yeah, the one "Air and Space" said would be throwing out Hydrogen Bombs
while literally "frying chickens in the barnyard" with the radioactive
superheated exhaust. Unlike that one, this reactor is apparently designed to
minimise radioactive release. Pluto was mentioned as either something one
would have to crash into an ocean after a test or use (A test would probably
cause a disaster in itself) or be programmed to fly for as long as possible
over enemy territory, perhaps for many years as the world was blasted, and
the missile kept flying back and forth, automated, sustained by a reactor
ramjet, over the moonscape below. Yikes.

> Ick.

Yeah.

[John Keeney]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (Prowlus)
> >Date: 6/12/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their
UAVS
> >
>
>http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.phtm
l
> >
> >Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?
>
>
> It's Popular Mechanics, I wouldn't count on the story being anything more
than
> an over active imagination. I put it in the same category as the laser
tank
> they had a "photograph" of in 1970 or 1972.

Don't be too hard on'em for that, the military was doing a lot of laser
work back then. Some time in the '70s the Army shot down drones
down at the Red Stone Arsenal with a laser in a PC (the power supply
was in another). There's also the matter of the NKC-135 that shot down
Side Winders with a laser.

[Kristan Roberge]

John Keeney wrote:

> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: (Prowlus)
> > >Date: 6/12/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their
> UAVS
> > >
> >
> >http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.phtm
> l
> > >
> > >Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?
> >
> >
> > It's Popular Mechanics, I wouldn't count on the story being anything more
> than
> > an over active imagination. I put it in the same category as the laser
> tank
> > they had a "photograph" of in 1970 or 1972.
>
> Don't be too hard on'em for that, the military was doing a lot of laser
> work back then. Some time in the '70s the Army shot down drones
> down at the Red Stone Arsenal with a laser in a PC (the power supply
> was in another). There's also the matter of the NKC-135 that shot down
> Side Winders with a laser.

Mobile Test Rig, used that big humper of a marine amphibious APC as the chassis
to lug around the generator to power the damn laser in the turret.

[George]

(Prowlus) wrote in message >...
> looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their UAVS
>
> http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.phtml
>
> Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?

The nuclear reaction they use in the article is very probably wrong.
It defies nuclear theory and the experiment that caused all the hype
about it could not be duplicated by Lawrence-Livermore. Given as LLNL
is one of the premier nuclear research labs, I doubt that this
technology would be used by the Air Force.

http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/06news/NewsReleases/2001/NR-01-08-05.html

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 12 Jun 2004 19:43:44 GMT,
B2431 attempted to say .....

> >From: (Prowlus)
> >Date: 6/12/2004 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their UAVS
> >
> >http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.phtml
> >
> >Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?
>
>
> It's Popular Mechanics, I wouldn't count on the story being anything more than
> an over active imagination. I put it in the same category as the laser tank
> they had a "photograph" of in 1970 or 1972.

Shhh, we arn't suposed to talk about those.....


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Jeremy Thomson]

(George) wrote in message >...
> (Prowlus) wrote in message >...
> > looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their UAVS
> >
> > http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/index.phtml
> >
> > Think they'll resurect the "glow-in-the-dark" brigade too?
>
> The nuclear reaction they use in the article is very probably wrong.
> It defies nuclear theory and the experiment that caused all the hype
> about it could not be duplicated by Lawrence-Livermore. Given as LLNL
> is one of the premier nuclear research labs, I doubt that this
> technology would be used by the Air Force.
>
> http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/06news/NewsReleases/2001/NR-01-08-05.html

Lawrence Livermore did not duplicate the experiment.
From the above link ....
"Using the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne, which has more than
100,000 times higher X-ray intensity than the dental X-ray machine
used in the original experiment"

Any high school science grad should notice it isnt the same
experiment.

" In other words, the X-ray irradiation did not decrease the time it
takes for hafnium to decay; a result that Becker and the team claim is
consistent with nuclear physics."

"In other words"? Did the Lawrence Livermore people actually say that
or is this a journo being to simplistic?

"Becker said. "Because the previous findings were so significant, our
team felt the experiment deserved to be repeated and verified."

So why didnt they duplicate the experiment exactly?

Maybe the Gamma Ray's are only triggered by low-intensity X-Rays?
People tried to produce fission for years with fast nuetrons, the
sucessfull approach, to use slow moving nuetrons, is rather
non-intuative.

I have high school physics only.
If electro magnetioc radiation can influence the electrons of the atom
to produce radiation why shouldnt shorter wavelength radiation
stimulate the nucleons? If this is possible I suspect the most
important variable is the frequency of the X-Rays (wavelength matching
the size of nucleons orbits?) not the intensity. No mention is made in
the supplied link as to wether L.L used the same frequency of X-Rays.

Remember the nucleus is weird, the weak force repels nucleon at short
range and the strong force atracts at long range (or is that the other
way around?).
So the idea that a weak X-Ray may stimulate gamma rays but a stong
X=Ray doesnt isnt all that inconsistant with sub-nuclear weirditties.

Jeremy Thomson