No, aircraft are not a large part of the global warming problem. The long-term problem for the aerospace industry is that fossil fuels are becoming too expensive. Aircraft carrying nuclear reactors are not a good idea, but production of an energy storage medium with a ground based reactor is a viable solution. Prior responses have cited problems with weight, shielding, cooling and safety. Note also that radiation makes metal brittle. Not good for aircraft longevity.

We have nuclear powered submarines and boats right? So why not airplanes? I say go for it!
Here’s the write up on the Ameriecan B-36 project:http://www.aviation-history.com/articles…

sounds like an excellent idea for the future, but I’m working on something a little more down to earth. a nuclear powered golf cart.
would you happen to know where I can get about 20lbs. of U235 or P239 at a reasonable price?
seriously, if your interested in that kind of thing you should find & read the book “project orion”.
research & engineering study’s done in the 50s show that it’s apparently feasable to put large payloads into space by detonating small atomic bombs feed from a hopper under an ablative shield every few seconds.
they actually built scale models that flew using conventional explosives.
the book has some period engineering drawings that have now been declassified that will make your hair stand up.

Somehow I think actually making an airplane work on nuclear power will be exceptionally difficult. We use nuclear power now to make heat which we use to convert water to steam to turn a turbine which makes electricity — and requires massive cooling units to keep the whole thing going.
If it becomes possible to create a more direct way to convert nuclear energy into mechanical work, I’d be interested. I suspect there are ways to design a powerplant that would remain contained in the event of an accident.
As a solution to global warming? No. Not unless you were going to put the gigantic firetruck on the airplane and fly it to the sun. Besides… Warmer is better.

Clear item is they would have to be prop jobs or large ducted fans gear driven from a central power plant. The built a couple of railroad locomotives back in the 50s and they were not very successful either in the US or UK where they were tested. I still think the best bet is space based solar and nuclear and making a peroxide type liquid fuel for other types of vehicle!

that would be , the worst idea ever, crash the plane, youve radiation leaking everywhere, also, who knows what that waste will do to the atmosphere?
and also, why would a terrorist waste his time making a nuclear bomb, when he can just hijack a plane?

i read that and i about died laughing.. that is the funniest thing i EVER read…..
notice ALL of the scientists involved are Aeronautical engineers NOT nuclear engineers… there is a HUGE difference in the fields… and although the aerotechs may talk about it for a long time it will NOT happen…
evidence both the US and Russia spent a decade exploring the tech for military purposes… and BOTH decided it couldn’t be done safely…
the problems with an airborne nuclear reactor are to many and to varied to overcome in a reasonable time frame.

Are you thinking of an actual reactor, or just xraying a radio active element to produce lots of free alpha particles which could heat enough air to be useful as a jet engine? Scientific American I think had an article on this maybe 5 years ago and it sounded like a good idea, but with high insurance costs.

That would be interesting, flying with a nuclear reaction going off right next to you. I assume they wouldn’t use lead to insulate you from radiation. I like the idea, but only over the ocean and if it could be made into a very large airship, that would carry over thousand people.

No, I wouldn’t support a nuclear airplane. Imagine what could WHEN two airplanes collide. Seems to me that could create a Nuclear reaction like a bomb. A submarine is much safer, as if it goes boom, it happens below sea level.

No, global warming was not because of pollution from aircraft, it was a natural cycle that ended almost a decade ago, and soon everyone will be ready for it to come back.

I couldn’t even imagine the insurance policy on flying a nuclear reactor around! The liability alone would be very costly. If it crashed I don’t think “global warming” would be at the top of the list of concerns.

Nuke planes are the only real solution to global warming, and anyone who cares about the planet will refuse to ride in any other.

No ,way bad idea.
Airplane crashes are horrific enough without spreading radioactive fuel rods across the country side.

It seems to me that to power such a large aircraft, the weight of the reactor would make it not very feasible.

Divorce Your Car by Katie Alvord another solution.

It’s a very popular idea in the Middle East……

Yes but it’s just a drop in the bucket.

It’s an interesting potential partial solution. Of course, as the article notes, it’s still 30-40 years from being a viable option. In the meantime I’d like to see airplanes running on some sort of biofuel.