US thinking about building nuclear-powered drones

[Tender Branson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/02/us-plans-nuclear-drones?newsfeed=true

The article clearly says "April 2", not "April 1" if you also thought this might be a joke ...

[Redalgo]

If this is true I would be curious about what kind of safety features will be incorporated into the design(s). The USAF has flown a nuclear powered aircraft before but there were setbacks which got the idea of incorporating the reactors into intercontinental bombers scrapped. Aside from risk of crashes and stolen technology, my main concern is how the drones might respond to taking a square hit from a SAM or AAM. Though I happen to have a very positive opinion of nuclear energy in general, a fleet of nuclear-powered drones could easily - even in remote areas - present an unjustifiably reckless threat to the health and well-being of civilians.

[Jacobtm]

And when they crash over a country we're spying on will we use it as a pretext to bomb the sh**t out of them, to keep the world safe from the dangers of nuclear proliferation?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Great- I am proud of the military for finding new ways to keep our young people in uniform out of harm's way and drones are the future

[Beet]

If they have fail-safed this nuclear technology, why not build nuclear-powered automobiles? I'm skeptical.

[Vosem]

And when they crash over a country we're spying on will we use it as a pretext to bomb the sh**t out of them, to keep the world safe from the dangers of nuclear proliferation?

I hope we'll be able to come up with a better casus belli, but hey -- if that's why we go to war against Iran or Syria, I'm all for it.

[King]

Fascinating.

[Napoleon]

And when they crash over a country we're spying on will we use it as a pretext to bomb the sh**t out of them, to keep the world safe from the dangers of nuclear proliferation?

I hope we'll be able to come up with a better casus belli, but hey -- if that's why we go to war against Iran or Syria, I'm all for it.

Wow

[Jacobtm]

Vosem is a troll.

It's sad that such war-mongering isn't really that attention grabbing though. Obviously many people have a huge boner for war but he's just joking.

[Jacobtm]

If they have fail-safed this nuclear technology, why not build nuclear-powered automobiles? I'm skeptical.

If they crash over a country we're spying on, or there is a nuclear incident that causes great harm and/or death, we will just call it an honest mistake and goad that country into ''forcing'' us to use violence against it.

[jimrtex]

If this is true I would be curious about what kind of safety features will be incorporated into the design(s). The USAF has flown a nuclear powered aircraft before but there were setbacks which got the idea of incorporating the reactors into intercontinental bombers scrapped. Aside from risk of crashes and stolen technology, my main concern is how the drones might respond to taking a square hit from a SAM or AAM. Though I happen to have a very positive opinion of nuclear energy in general, a fleet of nuclear-powered drones could easily - even in remote areas - present an unjustifiably reckless threat to the health and well-being of civilians.

Maybe they were talking about these:

http://www.space4peace.org/ianus/npsm2.htm

2.1.1 Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs)

All but one of the nuclear powered space missions launched by the U.S. used RTGs. In a document about the Ulysses mission, ESA/ESTEC (European Space Agency/European Space Research and Technology Center) explains the RTG technology as follows:

"What Are RTGs?

RTGs are lightweight, compact spacecraft power systems that are highly reliable. RTGs are not nuclear reactors and have no moving parts. They use neither fission nor fusion processes to produce energy. Instead, they provide power through the natural radioactive decay of plutonium (mostly Pu-238, a non-weaponsgrade isotope). The heat generated by this natural process is changed into electricity by solid-state thermoelectric converters. RTGs enable spacecraft to operate at significant distances from the Sun or in other areas where solar power systems would not be feasible. In this context, they remain unmatched for power output, reliability and durability.

RTGs have been used on 23 U.S. space missions including Voyager, Pioneer, Viking, Apollo, and more recently the Galileo and Ulysses missions.

[Vosem]

It's sad that such war-mongering isn't really that attention grabbing though. Obviously many people have a huge boner for war but he's just joking.

You'll notice the only war I've ever advocated on this forum is one against Iran (admittedly it says Syria up there - the window for a successful intervention in Syria is probably closed by now). I don't know if I posted about it, but I opposed the conflict in Libya, pretty vocally in RL. I don't have a 'boner' for war; a war is a very serious undertaking which will cause many deaths. War is justified in far too many cases.

Nuclear-powered drones are (the actual topic of this thread) probably not a good idea, though it depends on the sort of technology that is being used. I'm no expert; I couldn't say.

Vosem is a troll.

I'm sorry you feel that way; I enjoy spirited gentlemanly debates. I don't think I've ever personally attacked you; my respect for a person generally has little to do with their political beliefs. One of the reasons I come to the Atlas, particularly in the last several weeks, has been to participate in such debates. I don't think that makes me a troll.

[dead0man]

If they have fail-safed this nuclear technology, why not build nuclear-powered automobiles? I'm skeptical.

The obvious answer is cost.  It's ok if a drone costs $2 million, but you're not going to sell a lot of cars at that price, even if you never have to put more energy into it.

[Jacobtm]

I don't think that makes me a troll.

It worries me to think your proposals for provoking a war with Iran by crashing a nuclear drone in their territory and then attacking them for it might be serious.

I don't see much reason to take you any differently from Stephen Colbert.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What could possibly go wrong?

[Vosem]

I don't think that makes me a troll.

It worries me to think your proposals for provoking a war with Iran by crashing a nuclear drone in their territory and then attacking them for it might be serious.

I don't see much reason to take you any differently from Stephen Colbert.

Perhaps I phrased it wrong, but here's what's intended:

a) I would like the United States to go to war with Iran. This I've made clear many times.

b) If the casus belli the US government uses is the crash of a nuclear drone, I could certainly go along with that, though assuming I was somewhere in the high-ranking leadership, I would probably argue against it. The US doesn't need a casus belli to attack Iran.

c) I think nuclear-powered drones are, at present, a bad idea, but I don't know exactly what technology is being used (understandably, the US government wants to avoid other countries copying), so it's impossible to say.

[Purch]

And when they crash over a country we're spying on will we use it as a pretext to bomb the sh**t out of them, to keep the world safe from the dangers of nuclear proliferation?

I hope we'll be able to come up with a better casus belli, but hey -- if that's why we go to war against Iran or Syria, I'm all for it.

It's such a shame the republican party has lost it's identity. Non interventionism and no nation building probably seem like foreign concepts now.  Hopefully a guy like Ron Paul brings your party back to it's roots.

[dead0man]

And just to clear up a wrong....this isn't going to be a "nuclear powered UAV", at least not in the conventional sense.  It's going to be "isotope powered".  wiki link

It's a mature, safe technology that we've been using in satellites and space probes for several decades.  At worst it could be used in combination with a conventional explosive to make it "dirty", but there are better, more easily acquired materials than the stuff inside one of these for that purpose.  Even in a worst case crash it's not going to make an area radioactive.

The article in the OP gets its information from a place that hates all UAVs.  They are using loaded words to make this more sellable to the press/public.  The normal fearmongering we've come to love.