Airplane prices are ridiculous

Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:41Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 11, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
did. The Russians all died.

And that changes my statement how?

By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.

Since it has been done, it can be done. QED.

--
Jim Pennino

Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by...

"It can't be done". Â*If it kills the humans, it can't be done.

No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown.

The dead Soviets are well documented.

Who cares about dead Soviets?

The USAF was able to do it without killing anyone.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 26, 6:35*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:41*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 11, 1:13*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

Onboard nuclear reactors aren't used to produce electricity.
They are used to produce heat.

The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
did. The Russians all died.

And that changes my statement how?

By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.

Since it has been done, it can be done. QED.

--
Jim Pennino

Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by...

"It can't be done". *If it kills the humans, it can't be done.

No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown.

The dead Soviets are well documented.

Who cares about dead Soviets?

Their deaths were pivotal in breaking the Soviet moral
on this project.

The USAF was able to do it without killing anyone.

Shadow shielding was never perfected, remained a problem
and if testing had continued, someone would've died. This is
one of the three reasons atomic planes cannot be flown
under current (undeveloped) technology.

The other 2 reasons a

1) It could crash anywhere and the reactor would in effect
become a dirty bomb. This is unacceptable.

3) Radioactive fallout spewing out the tail due to the direct
cycle system. The indirect cycle (liquid metal) technology
was never achieved. It could be today.

*note- the reactor weight of 80 tons would be much less today.

---
Mark



Jim Pennino

Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 6:35Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:41Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 11, 1:13Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

Onboard nuclear reactors aren't used to produce electricity.
They are used to produce heat.

The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight.
It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians
did. The Russians all died.

And that changes my statement how?

By virtue of the fact that it can't be done.

Since it has been done, it can be done. QED.

--
Jim Pennino

Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by...

"It can't be done". Â*If it kills the humans, it can't be done.

No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown.

The dead Soviets are well documented.

Who cares about dead Soviets?

Their deaths were pivotal in breaking the Soviet moral
on this project.

Babbling nonsense.

Both the USA and the Soviet Union realized that the only value of a nuclear
aircraft, i.e. staying aloft for long periods, was actually of little value
as the same could be done for far less cost with conventional aircraft
operating in shifts, which is exactly what both sides did.

Also the ICBM was put in service, further reducing the need for fleets of
strategic bombers.

And since keeping an aircraft aloft for long periods has no use other than
for a bomber fleet, no one has bothered with the idea since then.

delete rest unread


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 26, 9:09*pm, wrote:

snip entire babbling post

You wrote:

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

The topic wasn't staying aloft indefinitely. It was whether
nuclear would be better for supplying the electricity as
opposed to batteries.

It cannot be done, for ALL THE REASONS I've stated.
Period.

End of Story.

Mark

Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:09Â*pm, wrote:

snip entire babbling post

You wrote:

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

The topic wasn't staying aloft indefinitely. It was whether
nuclear would be better for supplying the electricity as
opposed to batteries.

Gibbering idiot, the sentence stands as written.

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

Electric airplanes with batteries are toys.

Electric trains with batteries are toys.

Electric trains that get their power from overhead wires or the rails aren't
carrying their energy source.

Electric ships with batteries are toys; WWII submarines don't count as
they carried big diesel engines for power on the surface and to charge
the batteries.

Airplanes could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be
built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels.

Trains could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be built
as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels.

Ships are powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but civilian ships will
not be built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many
levels in the civilian world.

And actually, the topic was "Airplane prices are ridiculous".



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 26, 10:46*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:09*pm, wrote:

snip entire babbling post

You wrote:

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your
own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

The topic wasn't staying aloft indefinitely. It was whether
nuclear would be better for supplying the electricity as
opposed to batteries.

Gibbering idiot, the sentence stands as written.

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

Electric airplanes with batteries are toys.

Electric trains with batteries are toys.

Electric trains that get their power from overhead wires or the rails aren't
carrying their energy source.

Electric ships with batteries are toys; WWII submarines don't count as
they carried big diesel engines for power on the surface and to charge
the batteries.

Airplanes could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be
built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels.

Trains could be powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but will not be built
as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many levels.

Ships are powered by onboard nuclear reactors, but civilian ships will
not be built as they are neither needed nor are they very practical on many
levels in the civilian world.

And actually, the topic was "Airplane prices are ridiculous".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

smile

---
Mark

On Sep 26, 10:46*pm, wrote:

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

Only 2 simple questions he

The Toyota Prius is Nuclear powered?

And...

How exactly does electricity get extracted and utilized on
a nuclear powered airplane?

---
Mark

Mark wrote:
On Sep 26, 10:46Â*pm, wrote:

Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy
source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the
electricity.

Only 2 simple questions he

The Toyota Prius is Nuclear powered?

Idiot.

The on board energy source for a Toyota Prius is a gasoline engine.


snip babble


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.