the return of the nuclear-powered aircraft

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

http://popularmechanics.com/science/...gs/index.phtml

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

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/...gs/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

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/...gs/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

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/...gs/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! =-----

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/...ngs/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.

"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/...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.

"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/...ngs/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.

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/...ngs/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.

(Prowlus) wrote in message . com...
looks like the USAF is considering jamming a reactor into one of their UAVS

http://popularmechanics.com/science/...gs/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/News...-01-08-05.html

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/...gs/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.