This is completely nuts. We can grow our fuel and use solar and wind for our needs. The nuclear industry had a shocking history in most countries that use it including Japan and USA.

Dan, Melbourne, au

Its certainly commercially viable, im sure there are many countries and organisations out there desperate for long range nuclear capabilities...

Chris, Plymouth, UK

I find the notion of jettisoning engines (nuclear-powered or not) and safely parachuting them down whilst the cabin full of passengers free-fall to a certain doom somewhat amusing. But I think it just might be worthwhile.

sw, bedford, canada

Interesting concept.

This would potentially give every nation long-range nuclear capability.

I'm sure there will be plenty of buyers.

Peter, Cambridge, UK

We need to Change and Evolve. We cannot refuse Nuclear Power forever. We have better computers today. We have better materials. And if we are serious about it we can find a way to make small with ultra high output and impervious to damage Nuclear Reactors. That's our ticket to the stars.

Sansari, Bkk, Thailand

I am a professional Aerosystems student studying the above.There have been huge technological advances since the super powers ran thier programmes. Safety of Nuclear Fission has increased by a significant factor. I believe it will be realistic in 30-40 years after thorough research and testing.

Tony Burnell, Lincoln, UK

Nuclear power could make hydrogen which could be combined with CO2 to produce methane or methanol or ethanol , only problem would be eliminating fuel freezing inflight. Tankage on existing jet aircaft would have to grow by about 40% for same range but weight of fuel would similar

John Prendergast, Stafford shire, UK

Surely what we need is a bit of lateral thought.
lets move to a rigid airship system. WE don't need a nuclear powered plane but we might cope with a nuclear propelled airship, with lift from helium.

Dave, Chorley,

To allow mere humans, to fool with nuclear power, is rather like giving a monkey a gold watch.
Hydrogen is the most plentiful fuel in the Universe, why not use that? it's inexhaustible.

Clive Burghard, Lancing, ENGLAND

More trains and less planes is the answer. Short to medium distance transport should be the domain of the train not the plane. Reducing the number of aircraft in the skies is paramount . Nuclear powere aircraft I think not. There are too many environmental and health risks.

Jim Wills, Brisbane, Australia

Bubble fusion nuclear hydraulic turbines may offer the answer.
This emerging technology is similar to sonofusion but flow cavitation in hydraulic water/oil emulsion produces the fusion. This high torque and low rpm engine concept is under development in the US and Russia. No fissile fuel is used.

Michael R. Himes, Ellensburg, USA

"Why don't we try the Left-wiing approach instead? Just power the aircraft on sunflower seeds, rainbows, and good feelings."

Or we could develop hybrid cars like my dads prius. Oh wait, "the left" already did that!
You must salivate on your keyboard quite a bit!

Chris , Saint Paul , usa

Sorry, Jon, but variable solar activity has been scientifically ruled out as a significant contributor to our global warming issue. Why else would most environmental and atmospheric scientists still agree that global warming is human-caused?

Derek Mathias, Sunnyvale,

The aircraft is a blimp or dirigible, not a jet, and it uses He to provide lift. The nuclear reactor is used to make steam which can be coverted to electricity and also power propulsion turbines. The "aircraft" could stay aloft for several months, but travels at modest speads..and is stealthy.

Payne, Honolulu,

Why don't we try the Left-wiing approach instead? Just power the aircraft on sunflower seeds, rainbows, and good feelings. I understand that happy music makes airplanes fly high into the sky and makes us all feel good. The Left never stops to think if their ideas will actually work in real life

Jack Stone, Washington, D.C., USA

It's a great idea, though not for carbon emissions. There is no sucht hing as man-made global warming. The sun at its maximum caused detectable global warming on Earth, Mars, Pluto, Saturn, Jupiter, and Neptune's moon Triton. Since the sun passed its maximum, the Earth has cooled since 1998..

Jonathon Moseley, Wilmington, North Carolina, USA

I'm thinking with dread of another 9-11 event with nuke planes.

L. van Dyk, Hornepayne, Ontario, Canada

Interesting article--but the Convair B-36 "Peacemaker" was a pusher piston powered aircraft upgraded with auxiliary jet engines on the outboard of wing--the article refers to it as a "jet" bomber...a bit misleading

Barbara Roberts, New Mexico, USA

it is unbelievable! I dont know others ,but i would go to other places by that plane with nuclear power reactor....

Yi Wang, Harbin, China

There's no doubt that it is a good idea, even though it has big problem such as nuclear power security or people' attitude. So it would be carried out by clean these serious problems.

Yi Wang, Harbin, China

What ever happened to the RamJet?
Forget the idea of nuclear planes - that seems nuts.

Peter H, Auckland,

Titanic in the sky will be like this: Sorry we are going down. Unfortunately we do not have enough number of parachutes. Women…er…Reactors first!

Tetsu, Tokyo, Japan

On a lighter note, I loved the reference to Thunderbirds. Has anyone noticed that the prototype Boeing Sonic Cruiser (abandoned after 9/11) looks a lot like the FireFlash Supersonic Airliner from Episode I, "Trapped in the Sky".

MattSmith, Lancaster, CA, USA

I'm all for nuclear power but for god's sake - keep it on the ground. The idea that a pilot could jetison his reactor just before a crash may work on Star Trek but it's absurd in real life.

Daniel, San Jose, USA

What about something truely environmentally friendly like a sailing ship? You could get from Liverpool to New York in a few days, sit back, relax and enjoy! We have the technology in place to build massive sailing ships, I am not talking about a return to the 18th century, but a shift in thinking.

Michael, Liverpool, UK

Sounds like an excellent idea. Computers would control the nuclear power plants and there is no substitute for technology. Nuclear is the answer to the energy problem in so many ways.

Dan, Reading, USA

If nuclear power and defense facilities have not been able to completely control access to the hundreds and thousands of peices of nuclear material, how do we expect the commercial airlines to adequately control the millions of fuel pelets (or whatever the form).?

Kip, Hurst, TX, USA

Excerpts from this article were just read aloud to a room full of aviation writers, who howled with laughter at the call for armor-plated engines and lead-lined cabins, and the part about jettisoning the engines and parachuting them to earth before a crash. This guy should be stripped of his degree

Steve, Andover, NJ,

Considering every nuclear plant requires an army of specialist engineers and scientists there's not going to be much room for the passengers. Doh, back to the drawing board, we forgot about them.

Barrie Redfern, Zdole, Slovenia

How does the nuclear reactor power the airplane ?
As for open rotor designs, Boeing and Airbus looked into these concepts quite a few years ago. Nothing new here. Academics are never in touch with reality, practicality, industry and actual engineering.

Eric, Seattle, USA

This must be proved in passenger cars, buses and trains before going airborne. Nuclear-powered portable generators have been in use for years, unbeknownst to most of the public, with never an accident; there is even a nuclear-powered artificial heart which has proved safe and effective. We need it!

Gary, Sunny West Michigan, USA

Bring back SLOW travel!! the future is trains and ships, not planes. Why are so many people obsessed with speed, and when did the holiday experience stop including the 'travelling there' bit?. Time for more people to start thinking about their impact on the planet. Trains are the new planes.

Rob T, London, UK

While nuclear power has a smaller carbon footprint than oil or gas power generation it is not true to say it causes no carbon emissions. The nuclear fuel must be dug from the ground, transported and refined.

Jon Mills, Bristol, UK

I watched a Bumble Bee today "It" didnt have any problem carrying "Its" load ! fairly fast . Concorde was PERFECTION the RUNWAY wasnt,Sour Grapes and envy from someone.
Whats wrong with the MAGLEV ! or High Orbital transport,burning hydrogen.

Derek Bevan, Huntingdon, England

Terrible idea. I work in aerospace designing primary aircraft structrue. So many reasons this will never happen.

David, Wichita, USA

Ooh, unfortunate Thunderbirds reference there - their first episode was about the implications of a terrorist bomb on an atomic-powered aircraft. Woops!

Martin, st andrews, scotland

Possibly the most stupid idea ever to be justified with the words "climate change".

Glenn, maidstone, UK

This is bonkers. "...in the worst-case scenario, if the armour plating around the reactor was pierced there would be a risk of radioactive contamination over a few square miles..." !?Wonderful - that covers most of Manhattan in a New York crash, all of western London in a crash at Heathrow etc.

David, London,

How about we stick wind turbines on the wings to generate the power to turn the propellers? Renewable is the way forward!

Mikey, Wick,

As a deep green environmentalist I'm all for it. Radiation contamination is no worry for me if it can make a good nature reserve like that surrounding Chernobyl.

keith b, Wigan, uk

The underlying problem is the one often mentioned: the large amount of weight involved in a safe nuclear reactor or reactors with output large enough to get an aircraft off the ground is probably unsolvable. I think there is no practical alternative to a kerosene-like fuel, from oil or coal.

Herb Schneider, Croton, NY, USA

If I still have to take off my shoes and dump my liquids at the airport then I am unimpressed.

Pat, Los Angeles,

Synaesthesia, Blacksburg, USA
Of the first 50 comments, 35 are from Americans, 10 from the UK, 5 from other countries. So, does that mean that it's actually the Americans who are 'complete morons' if we're generalising?

I'd suggest that you look before you leap! Scientifically speaking of course.

Will Currie, London, UK

I'm all for nuclear power applied correctly.... but what happens in the case they can't jetison the engines, or say the plane explodeds for some unforseen reason at high altitude... would suspect the radiation damage would be far more wide spread and much harder to contain.

Mike, Cupertino, US

Osama bin Laden thanks you for your innovations!
Only a few miles would be contaminated? Just Wall Street, City Hall and the Statue of Liberty? Awesome!
As a New Yorker, I'm thinking this might not be the greatest idea in the world.

James Gordan, Woodbury, U.S.A.

I'm still waiting for the flying car I was promised back in 1963.

Greg, Watertown,

It was tried over 60 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft#NEPA_and_ANP
The weight required to shield the reactors and protect against rupture during a crash was prohibitive. There would have been no capacity to spare for passengers or cargo.

Tom Davidson, Richmond, Virgina, US

A 747 carrying the same volume of hydrogen as they currently do kerosine has enough fuel to get to the end of an average runway.

Dave, Oxford,

Umm... I'm not an environmentalist, but this sounds like a really bad idea. I'm all for generating electricity with nuclear power with reactors on the ground, but having one in a plane just doesn't thrill me. What if the plane crashes? What if the reactor malfunctions and melts down in mid-air?

Dave Ferro, Dayton, Ohio, USA!

Glad I stumbled across this article - I now know all the tech specs of the B36 and will no doubt be even more popular at parties.

Jonathan Peden, Birmingham, West Midlands

Possibly the most stupid idea I've ever heard. Civilian aircraft can not be protected on the scale of nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers.

Still - it should prove popular with terrorists, who will just LOVE the idea of crashing one of these into a city.

Dave Morgan, Portree, Scotland

So that's how they transport all the US and Brit slaves around the world.

Harold Reimann, Lucerne Valley, CA, US

How about nuclear powered airships instead? Design potential includes greater separation between reactor and crew/passengers and less chance of catastrophic ground impact. I’m assuming of course that a contemporary airship design would be far safer than the Hindenburg.

Richard, London, UK

Nuclear airliners make no sense. Pilotless airliners are possible also but people wont ride on them.. they are leery enough of driverless trains. Add the nuclear factor to a mode of travel that already has an uneasy customer base? Parachuting components in an incident? Ever see the film 'Failsafe' ?

Dave Innes, Brisbane, Australia

Why don't we just use the flying saucers everyone thinks we have hidden in Nevada?

jay, austin, TX,

There is a lot of room for improvement in materials science and nanotechnology in 40 years. Who knows if a fission or fusion generator and shielding can be miniaturized by then to a useful weight/power tradeoff. I'd like to see a safe nuclear train engine before I strapped myself into a plane tho

Joe E, Denver, CO, USA

I think this is a valuable contribution to the debate on the future of transport. We should stop demonising Nuclear Power and restart research. Another transport mode that could benefit even more quickly is Shipping which uses far greater amounts of fossil fuel than aircraft.

Tony Walford, Lausanne, Switzerland

Just use ground based nuclear reactors to produce hydogen and oxygen through electrolysis of water, compress it and use the an array of fuel cells to power the aircraft...

John Pain, London, England

This will never ever work. Why?? Insurance Companies.. If i was an adjuster I would never insure a nuclear powered aircraft think of the potential liabilities. Military use maybe... But Civilian... Forget it.

Bill C, Chicago, IL

The idea is bunk.

It would be far, far better to use a ground based nuclear power plant to power refineries producing methane or hydrogen based fuels for passenger aircraft.

Having said that, a nuclear rocket is a fantastic means of propelling a spacecraft...

Paul, London,

oh great. Flying nuclear bombs doubling as passenger flights.

sanja, london,

"Each flight was accompanied by an aircraft packed with marines ready to respond to a crash by parachuting down and securing the area. "

I think I see a slight flaw in this plan...

Roy, England,

Interesting and innovative. So why not combine solar energy with kerosene as a stop-gap. Aeroplanes generally fly above the couds in relatively unbroken sunlight (except at night of course), so a combined fuel system should work as well as it does on the roads.

KR, Stockport,

This is a really stupid and typically Cold War era idea; better develop alternative methods to the conventional tube-with-wings aircraft, or bring back zeppelins! We should also aim to reduce transatlantic business travelling by developing communications tech, holographic video conferences anyone?

Matt, Berlin, Germany

'Not enough people would be prepared to fly in this to make it viable. It could only ever be used for freight. And any companies who used it would face a consumer backlash.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK'

And companies relying on transport powered by fossil fuels wont?

Phil Mann, Newcastle upon Tyne,

Excuse my ignorance, but I thought you could burn a nuclear war head and drop it from a plane without it exploding or releasing any radiation. If thats the case then I dont see how crashing the plane would cause an explosion or radiation

Wouldnt the lack of kerosene make this safer to crash?

Martin, Hull, U.K.

Imagine one of these stuck, (having crash landed short), at the end of the runway at Heathrow? That would shut down London, let alone Heathrow. Ships yes, no problem, but aircraft? Please, get real, there are better solutions on the horizon, simply not in the public eye ... yet.

Chris Coles, Medstead, Alton, United Kingdom

You failed to discuss the importance of the contributions of Dr. Roy Smelt, a Brit who came to the U. S., and became the Chief Scientist of Lockheed. Dr. Smelt first talked about the possibility of nuclear powered aircraft in the late 1950's. Check out NASA's RIFT program which he headed.

Joe Miller, Jacksonville, FL (USA)

How much power? A380 cruises at M0.87, 290 m/sec, with 4 Trent 900's at 70,000lb thrust each = 360MW. Chernobyl's reactors? Probably less than that. I agree with Howard - ships are fine - weight is not a problem - three weeks UK to Australia is fine. Very civilised, provided the beer holds out.

Denis Miller, Sunshine, Victoria, Australia

This article's picture caption incorrectly claims the cold-war era Convair B-36 "Peacemaker" as a "jet bomber". While standard production models of the B-36 did have 4 jet engines, these engines were used primarily for take off and then shut down. Otherwise this bird flew on 6 piston engines.

John, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Re: the caption on the picture - the B-36 wasn't a jet plane. It had piston engines. See the big propellers?

Surellin, Columbus, USA

Ridiculous idea. Very high speed rail lines across the world with tunnels across the Atlantic & Pacific make more sense.

Aldo, Swindon, UK

Great - we will have thousands of nuclear missiles flying around the world, non-stop. What are the consequences if one of these were to crash. Oh and that if should be when.

Andrew, Winchester, England

I have absolutely no doubt that human ingenuity can make this a viable alternative and will gladly sign up for the first flight!

Kirk, Crystal Lake, USA

this will never happen-if the lefties have their way in the USA-we will all be back to the horse and buggy-let alone nuclear powered
aircraft? get real...here's a thought...how about..nuclear power
for our cities? can't get that done either....yaah mule!!!

james, harrisburg,

i'm an engineer and i'm still worried about the consequences of having nuclear materials being emmitted at 50,000ft and falling on everyones heads plus the fact a nuclear rod will be travelling at 500mph surrounded by 300 passengers.....the risks are massive!

Liam, Aberdeen, Scotland

If the idea is to drastically reduce carbon emissions, I would rather put the nuclear reactors on ships instead. The huge cargo vessels and oil tankers pollute far more than airplanes, and the risk would be far less than in the air.

Howard, Glasgow,

Engine was developed by GE and abandoned because the reactor shield was so heavy it detracted from the payload.

tony, cincy,

For space travel yes, not flying in the Earths airspace.

Hell we can't get permission to build a power station, never
mind this. If the greens have their way even pigs wont fly.

Steve, Manchester, UK

Who needs terrorists? CFT is the killer here - that's Controlled Flight into Terrain - where a plane hits a bit of ground the crew didn't know was there (disorientation etc). It still happens. How do you jettison reactors if you don't know you're going to crash? Accidents happen, ergo, this won't.

Pedro Conejo, Puerto Cabras, Spain

As soon as I started reading this, one picture immediately came to mind: Marty McFly standing next to the Delorean and asking Doctor Emmett Brown, "This thing is NUCLEAR!!??"
Yep, whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it will achieve...

Jimmy C, Letchworth Garden City, UK

The future is the underground travel, not the flying which is so fuel unefficient and might be even so dangerous as this silly idea is.

Robert, Bratislava, Slovakia

The engineering is irrelevant. The fact that London to Sydney non-stop is a punishment and not a consolation is irrelevant.

Not enough people would be prepared to fly in this to make it viable. It could only ever be used for freight. And any companies who used it would face a consumer backlash.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Um I got and idea why not use all that power from a single reactor on the ground and create hydrogen fuel for the aircraft and keep the reactor on the ground.Hmm then you could use if for other things besides airplanes.

kevin, milwaukee,

I take it, this will be available to all airlines of the world? Some of which are unsafe as it is.

margie, victoria, australia

I though NZ bannd nuclear anything from their country?

JohnH, Orleans, USA

Here are the problems.
1)Reactor shielding requires a lot more material = weight
2)Particles flying out of an unshielded reactor change material properties and the plane falls apart.
3)There's more but no room

katz, honolulu, usa

The problem with the Nuclear engine in the B-36, was that it was not practical. The weight of the shielding alone shot the thing down, and then it didn't provide propulsion.

Much better to put the thing on the ground and use it to make hydrogen and/or electricity to drive cars and trains.

dave, Seattle,

I'm a big proponent of nukes, for energy, for blowing up bad guys, whatever.

But airplanes crash, and very likely always will, while i'm sure they could make some effort to assure containment, or limit the fuel on-board... still, what happens when terrorists fly nuclear aircraft into buildings?

cud, Denver, USA

Brilliant idea. I'd love to see it happen.

JSmith, Fredericksburg VA, USA

Eh, No.

Too many people with vested interests in nuclear energy are running around claiming nuclear energy as the solution to all our problems with the line "look mom, no carbon!". Its not luddism, its a healthy dose of reality. Lobbing nuclear reactors across continents will never be 100% safe.

Aidan Wade, Blackrock, Dublin

The first one of these to take to the air will be a terrorist target. There isn't enough security in the world to protect an aircraft powered by a nuclear reactor. The train is a better bet.

Steve I, Menifee, Ca., USA

What dreadful responses from a luddite world.

I'm sure the Wright Bros were equally pilloried about their daft flying thing, along with the idiot who claimed the world was round.

Times change and technology changes to suit the times.

Charley Gwen, Glasgow , Scotland

the call used to be

"6 turnin' and 4 burnin'"

The B36 was a hybrid as you can see.

Erik S., Sumter ,

Why not devoting effort to build super-fast railway system, which can be powered by nuclear power-generated electricity? We already have the technology, and it can reduce millions of short haul flight.

Tim, London,

I served aboard a nuclear powered aircraft carrier and none of the crew is ever affected by the reactors

Jordan, NYC, U.S.A

Actually Fred, the B-36 had 4 turbojets. Look way out on the wingtips. Anyways, I don't see this happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

gnorville, Smithfield, America

What could happen if this idea came into being is that the planes based in Middle Eastern countries could come into the hands of terrorists (or the Iranians might use them themselves). They could crash the planes into various cities in the US and Israel. This would be 9/11 on a much worse scale.

Richard, Portland, OR, USA

You would actually be safer flying in a nuclear airplane than driving in your car... And the research in the 50's and 60's was disbanded because they didn't need to utilize bombers with long flight times any more. I'm all for it!

David, Orlando, America

People who are concerned about the nuclear shielding have obviously never served on a sumbarine or really have any clue what a nuclear reactor does. They are safer than most forms of power. Whether it works or not is another scenario, but the primary concern should be with steam leaks.

M.H, Richmond, VA, USA

I say we need to further the rubber band technology. Propellers run on hug rubber bands twisted prior to take off.

Nick Knight, Laytown, Ireland

TO Fred, New York Apparently you aren't old enough to know of or even have seen a B-36. "There 6 a pushin' and 4 a pullin' " as the people who flew them used to say.
There were 6 Turbo prop engines pushing(facing to the rear) and 4 JET ENGINES on the end of each wing pulling conventionally.

Wayne, Kansas City , USA

These luddites should be realistic. It is an undeniable fact that if our current energy demands continue to grow, then nuclear power is the only viable alternative available that will satisfy those demands. The technology is proven now, let's use it properly... and safely.

Alan, Barnsley, UK

Sorry, Fred of NY. A version of the B-36 featured "six turning & four burning" - six P&W R4360 piston engines and four GE J-47 jet engines. So, yes, the B-36 was a jet.

Mike, San Francisco, USA

The B-36 was a jet aircraft.
It had 6 piston powered propellers & 4 jet engines hanging in nacelles at the outer wings.
You can see the jet engines in the photo with this article.

Jeff, Wilmette, USA

Uh, Fred, notice the 4 jet engines on the wings? The B-36 was fitted with those in addition to the 6 prop drive engines. Its a hybrid.

Johnny, tokyo, japan

a flying nuke? who's engineering genius is this one. I'll feel real safe with that flying around.

PK, Charlotte, NC

The B36 is not a jet

Fred, New York,

"Sadly, this just doesn't work, as research in the 1950's and 1960's showed. "

Yeah, it's really a shame that there haven't been any technological advances in the last 58 years. I wish they could reduce the heat of my UniVac so I wouldn't have to strip down to my undies to type my e-mail messages

Rick, Pahrump, NV,

This wild idea from the 50's actually produced something useful. A thorium based molten salt reactor is much smaller than exisitng reactors, produces almost no waste and can generate fuel for a plane. Still not a bright idea to fly nuclear reactors though.

Lars Jorgensen, Royal Oaks, USA

News flash! All the global warming gains have been reversed since 2003. We're back to 1980 temperatures. Stop trying to scare people into this. If you want to develop something like this, make it cost efficient.

Dan Wilson, Phoenix, USA

Maybe a return to ocean going liners. Large nuclear powered vessels with proven capabilities transporting thousands of people at once. Lets face it do we really need to move people between continents in real time? If we do then they can pay premiums and fly. The rest of us might take the ship.

phil, sacramento, ca

Does _anyone_ think that people are going to put up with nuclear reactors falling out of the sky when planes crash?

GW is going to knock about 85% - 90% of the airplanes out of the sky 'cuz they're too dirty. Better build rails. Lots of 'em.

Dave, King George, Va, USA

Pilot: "we are going to crash and all be killed but if you look out your windows you will see that we are safely releasing the reactors to float to earth" or Cop: "don't panic the radiation only has contaminated a quarter 0f the city"

allen antrim, warrensburg--mo, usa

It would not be long before the opportunity to shoot one down and create whole swathes of terrain/countries unliveable - the opportunity to use them as 'dirty-bombs' will soon see the idea buried. Not to say if one crashed on take-off/landing within radiation-reach of a large metropolis...

John Russell, LONDON, UK

This is stupid!!
Was this guy living under a rock on 11-9-2001?
Mix in radioactive material to the equation

Tom, london, UK

One crash on takeoff or landing could potentially make an airport like Heathrow or Los Angeles unusable forever.

This story can and should be filed away with the flying car schemes.

Eric, San Francisco, USA

here we go again, john mccain wants more nuclear plant , i almost stayed in a plant in near central ill. big plant i thought that i had problems with the drinking water there. oh well ,thats life..

jimmy, colorado, usa

To clear up an error, Australian cities are a case-by case basis to allow Nuclear powered ships to dock. Garden Island Naval Facility in Sydney reguarly allows US aircraft carriers to dock.
Australia is in the middle of nowhere so to fly anywhere in the world non-stop would be fantastic.

Nathan, Sydney, Australia

How many will Iran National Airways want?

At least it would save them the trouble of having to develop nuclear warheads and missiles.

But I guess it's more exciting than bio fuel research.

Alex, Tunbridge Wells,

Economically and practically, this is quite a silly idea. It would be better to build more nuclear powerplants for utility use to offset jet emissions. The notion of flying nuclear reactors would not rest well in the public mind.

Peter Lee, Stanford, CA, USA

What about Flux Capacitors? They just need to find a way to produce the 1.21 gigawatts of electrical power required to operate.

Rob, Port Washington, WI, USA

What this article fails to mention is that the Russians didn't shield their crew, who all died within a year. I'm a nuclear engineer who works for a big power company. I helped design a concept nuclear plane & there is no way to guarantee safety like our nuclear power plants have. This is a bad idea

Tricia, Chicago, USA

"By the end of this century. . . " I wonder what was being said about powered flight in 1908. If there is a buck to be made in it you can bet the Americans will find a way to do it, and the Democrats will find a way to tax it. But since the world is going to end on December 21, 2012 it is moot

Ricky, Ashland City, Tn, USA

If we switch to nuclear planes, then I think I'd have to go "old-school" and take a ship back to Europe if I ever had the urge to take a vacation there. This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever hear of...

Joe, Chicago, United States

1. Reactor heats water real hot and uses as reaction mass. Turbine doesn't make electricity but does same as jet. Operate as pure rocket, too -- search NERVA.
2. Same canisters for nuclear waste house reactor. New tech. Survive impact intact.
3. Now know how make light reactor. His prop feasible!!

Artie Wright, Waltham, MA, USA

A far smarter idea would be to use a reactor to create synthetic jet fuel or methanol on the ground from CO2 and water, then fuel the aircraft with that. Any CO2 released into the air would be the same as that captured in the first place, so it's just as carbon neutral with no new risks.

Kent, Outside Chicago, USA

I am an expert on the type of reactor the Professor is suggesting. To say that the concept was proven is mistaken. The amount of technical development work remaining is prohibitive. Better to produce hydrogen with sea-based nuclear plants (like submarines but for commercial generation) for aircraft

Harry T, Wilton, USA

I think it would be too risky. The risk of making inhabited land uninhabitable is unacceptable And it would make much more sense to synthesize jet fuel from the energy of a nuclear plant and use that to power the plane. A nuclear reactor has huge capital costs, and needs a team of engineers to run

Q, Guelph, ON, Canada

read this if you don't think it will happen.... and this is out of the 1950's guys..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_X211

danpa, g'ville, usa

Synthesizing fuel also wouldn't contribute to global warming, because it would use carbon that's already out in the carbon cycle.

Q, Guelph, ON, Canada

Who thinks up nonsense like this? Some crank wanting money from a government to spend on these "prestige" projects? Remember Concorde? Turned to be a subsidised toy for the rich - again!!

John Edgar, Cupar, Fife, scotland

Yikes – and we taxpayers are funding this man?

Simple technical and environmental issues make airborne nuclear power a barking idea.

We're more likely to be achieving clean solar-hydrogen aircraft on Poll's timescale than a nuclear solution.

DJ, Brill, UK

As Australia and New Zealand will not allow Nuclear powered ships to dock in their countries how does the author of this article propose to convince them to allow a nuclear reactor to overfly and then land in these or indeed in any country.

Keith, WELSHPOOL, UK

We live in an age where it is so untrendy to be in command of the facts, that journalists deliberately get them wrong to prove they are not anoraks.
The B36, six main engines 28-cylinder Wasp Majors, was petrol powered. The four jets were just boosters for take-off and over the target.

Matthew Spencer, Bedford, England

In Idaho, USA there is an airstrip built for the nuclear aircraft that was being developed and the engines sit outside the first nuclear power plant that produced electricity. Huge is not the proper word nor is the falacy of it.

Darrell Smth, Coquille, USA

This is why they are pushing Global warming on us, so you will accept stuff like this.

Bob, BC, Canada

Never say never...You can never predict advances in engineering. How many have been killed though by pollution due to fossil fuels. Nuclear. Safer. But how do you get around the perception of the ignorant and their irrational fears.

Bill, Boston,

If you pray at the alter of Global Warming, expect to get a little warm from the nuclear fuel rods.

Claude, London, England

Won't happen:

1) Lead used as shielding is too heavy.

2) This is not technology that supports miniaturization.

3) Uhm. 9/11. If you flew two of these into the WTC towers, they would be standing, but would require YEARS of decon, cleanup and evacuation of NYC. It's a flying dirty bomb.

Jon, Salisbury NC USA,

Already some excellent critique of this hairbrain idea. I was an Elec. Engr. some forty years ago and came by some of the surplus control components as a part of my job. I thought then and now, What A Foolish Idea! We must conserve petroleum for irreplaceable future needs -Medicine, Flight, etc.

Maynard, Bryantsville, USA

Rather than traditional reactors I would rather see the Quantum Nucleon engine concept used.

John Mattila, Hillsboro, usa

To: Tom, San Diego
Cold Fusion was a hoax, the 'fusing' rate at cold temperatures is many orders of magnitude to small ,and their is no known way to increase the reaction rate at cold temps.
To: Brian, Litchfield
The nuclear 'jet' would heat air the same way water coolant heats in a fission reactor

Brian, Rochester, USA

This will never happen. It was bad enough trying to shield the pilots in the 50s let alone 300 passengers today. Complete non-starter due to the weight.

Russ, Reading, UK

the ridiculous thing is that absolutely nobody has ever been killed in a nuclear accident in this country. the doom and gloom liberals and inept knuckle-headed media think one of these aircrafts will drop from sky onto a school building during a dangerous kick-ball game at recess.

christoff, washington,

New Zealand won't allow US Nuclear-powered ships into its waters, I have a feeling a aircraft would be no different.

Sorry, but this one isnt happening. Exaggerated!

Doug, Reston, USA

Atleast in some countries they look for an alternative other than Drill Baby Drill. But I have to say that this is probably not the answer.

Andrew, Madison, USA

We can't get ground based reactors approved and built so lets build nuclear powered airplanes. What a joke.

Mike P, Baraboo, WI, USA

It would likely make more sence to use electric from nuclear power to create Hydrogen which has also already been proved as a fuel for aircraft. The security and environmental issues will make nuclear only aircraft impractical.

Eric, San Ramon, CA, USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

This was the massive nuclear ramjet. It worked by superheating the air coming in to an explosive thrust going out.

I couldn't figure out how it would work at slow, takeoff speeds,
perhaps it was using a pre-compressor for those conditions.

dan, carlsbad, ca, usa

"..if the armour plating around the reactor was pierced there would be a risk of radioactive contamination over a few square miles. "

Every such event would leave a deadly radioactive marker for 10,000 years or so .. no environmental concern..

And if it hits a river or melts down??

Jerry, Bonham, Tx,

The heaviest existing aircraft is, I guess, the A380 at about 400 t. That is the weight of *one* omnidirectional reactor shield, and for flight you really would want three or four independent reactors, each with its own shield. So it could begin to make sense for aircraft 1500 t and above.

G.R.L. Cowan, Cobourg, Canada

Not to mention the threat of terrorist using them as weapons. And what happens if the aircraft explodes or crashes in mid air over a city?

James, London,

In the end someone pulled out a slide ruler and calculated the amount of power the needed and the amount the reactor could put out. The reactor wasn't powerful enough but it was the smallest thing that they could get on a plane. That's when they pulled the plug. This guy exaggerates a lot.

Polis, Pacifica, US

This will never work with present technology. It would have to be a prop driven type of engine ,like nuke subs, powered by a closed system steam turbine. It won't work because it would become a dirty bomb if it crashed.

Scott, phoenix, USA

Mr. Finnerty: Last I checked, Cranfield University and the Royal Aeronautical Society were far from the reach of the Democratic party. Your Americentricism is quite amusing.

EP, Stavanger,

The majority of incidents occur during takeoff and landing. Obviously, there would be no time to drop the engines by parachute. Typically, airplanes just don't fall out of the sky at altitude. And if they did, no pilot would want to jettison the only thing that might save them. This is laughable.

Mike Leatherwood, Lake Jackson, TX, USA

I 'm aware of the earlier nuclear air transport projects and am a proponent of nuclear power. However, for materials(and later people) within the USA, transporting subterranean, offers tremendous advantage over the transportation expansion plans today.

E. Waltrer, Muenster, USA

Intriguing, but what ever happened to Cold Fusion reactors?

Tom, San Diego, CA,

How can a "jet" engine be powered by nuclear fuel? The energy from a reactor would be either electrical or thermal. That would most likely be harnessed by an electrical motor. The electrical motor would most likely be driving a propellor since there would not be a need for compression.

Brian McCue, Litchfield, NH, USA

Adding airborne nuclear fueled engines to false (ref:www.heartland.org) panic over supposed human induced global warming is the icing on the irrational cake. Leaders know better but are afraid to say because their constituents believe it and will vote against them if they tell the truth (McCain).

Wm Haynes, Rancho Palos Verdes, USA

That's nice. The reactor gets the parachute and the passengers go down with the plane.

Hans Zaepfel, Loveland, CO, USA

If I recall correctly, the radiation would play havoc with the structural properties of the metal, making it brittle over time.

But it's not like wings or tailfins ever fall off of airplanes...

cskendrick, Charlotte, USA

Mark - that comment was made in the context of a long-haul flight from London to Australia or NZ. It does not need to be clarified further.

Chris - this is 2008, not the 1960s - shielding has probably improved since then. The problem is ensuring nothing bad can happen at takeoff or landing.

Colin Haywood, Cambridge, UK

"The purpose of the flights was to prove that the crew could be safely shielded from the reactor." Quite - and the result of the tests was that the required shielding was impracticably heavy, even for a military-standard protection level which would obviously be lower than civilian. It doesn't work.

Thomas Goodey, Cuxton-upon-Medway, England

And.......... what happens when some yahoo hijacks one of these suckers and flies it into a building? Bad idea, guys.

Steven J. Beto, Cottage Grove, MN, USA

Done! This is a great idea! Forget being dependent on Mid-East oil.

Daniel, Overland Park, KS, USA

Imagine 9/11 with Nuclear Airplanes! Please, let's be more creative.

Frank, New Brunswick, USA

This guy is dreaming... Maybe he should go talk to the russains who flew the nuclear powered plane - oh no, that's right they are all dead from radiation poisoning.
The americans are alive but their plane never flew on nuclear power and could only just get off the ground because it was so heavy!

DG, London,

Hydrogen fuel would be better, Use the electric power from the wind or waves to make it.

Dan, Marietta, U.S.A.

absolutely daft. I can't think of a way to make a simpler dirty bomb. Think of all the added power you would instantaneously give a hijacker. Also, the worst case scenario if there was a crash is nuclear radiation over a few square miles? Let consider most crashes occur near takeoff in urban areas.

charles, ithaca, USA

“The risk of reactors cracking open in a crash could be reduced by jettisoning them before impact and bringing them down with parachutes.”

- A high percentage of airline accidents happen within near airports. Reactor parachutes would be useless for accidents during takeoff or landing.

Mike, Anchorage, AK, USA

Get serious. The far-left envirofascists will bury any development in this area through protests and lawsuits. We can't even build nuclear power plants or transmission lines to carry wind-generated electricity. The envirofascists own the democrat party.

Kevin Finnerty, Atlanta, USA

with tradeoff of liquid fuels weight versus shielding (probably lead) it may work. Original aircraft engine work started in the 1940s in US, giant engine size of a train car in Idaho.

Would go a long way in reducing dependencies on fossil fuels as airliners gulp an amazing amount of petrol

DC, Richland WA, US

...also no one will be fat or stupid and all children will be well behaved.

Barkmor, Vancouver,

Sadly, this just doesn't work, as research in the 1950's and 1960's showed.

The shielding proved to be impossible. The metal in the airplane slowly becomes radioactive, and moisture in the atmosphere reflects radiation back into the airplane at odd angles, making shadow shielding ineffective.

Chris, Los Angeles, USA

Great idea, but hard to imagine the general public warming up to the idea of sitting just a few feet away from a nuclear reactor.

JohnS, Baltimore, USA

Do you really want to put radioactive material (fuel) on an airliner after 9-11?
Of course you can't get the mushroom cloud explosion (power plant fuel is much less concentrated than weapons grade material), but you still have the "Dirty Bomb" issues to contend with.

KellyJ, San Diego, USA

This is both stupid and dangerous!

bob, trenton, nj

"...the aircraft will no longer need to land to refuel."

Yes, they will. But it will be irrelevant because the range of the aircraft will far exceed the length of the flights.

The author should have said that the distance of a "normal" nonstop flight will no longer be limited by fuel capacity.

Mark Carlton, Cincinnati, OH, USA