Appendix
When I started writing this paper I didn't expect it to be as
complicated as it turned out to be, source wise that is. Since a good
deal of the ANP program was classified at the time there were a number
of contradictory articles which appear to be either an attempt by the
author to fill in the blanks, or perhaps deliberate disinformation by
the government.
The idea of powering aircraft with atomic power is still a topic
which causes very strong opinions, one way or the other. During the
time I have been researching and writing this paper I have discussed
this topic with a good number of my friends. And a common reaction is
simply, "Why?" Why would anyone want to fly an atomic aircraft. After
explaining the goals of the ANP program many people still don't see
what the point was, most consider atomic aircraft to be simply too big
a risk to be worthwhile.
My initial conversations gave me the idea to go to the nets and
solicit opinions there. I posted to wpi.students, rec.aviation,
sci.military, and sci.aeronautics asking for opinions on nuclear
powered aircraft. This should not be considered to by a good sampling
of the general public as, in general, those people on the nets have a
high level of education and are, for the most part, involved in some
technical field. Plus the newsgroups I posted to have a high
concentration of people interested in aviation simply because of what
their subjects.
I received a fair number of replies and in general the reaction was
again, why use atomic power. However, a few people did acknowledge
that it was feasible, and perhaps desirable for the military. Here are
a few selected quotes, no attribution as I stated I would not use
names. "I think that the words 'nuclear' and 'aircraft' coming
together in the same breath would freak out a lot of people, mostly
those who don't know a lot about the idea. --- However, I personally
think the idea would be feasible, providing that it is well-maintained
and well-regulated." "This doesn't sound feasible! Nuclear engines on
military aircraft? Wouldn't the nuclear product yield an identifiable
signature?" "The major problem, I think, would be that crashes would
make things rather messy." "How do you plan to eliminate the danger
of radioactive contamination in the event of a crash or other
catastrophic failure (and there *will* be catastrophic failures)?"
"Planes crash. How can you make it safe? If you *could* make it safe,
and convince me it was safe, I guess I'd have no objections." "Nuclear
propulsion for aircraft was one of the stupidest ideas they ever came
up with. --- The consequences of accidents, --- overwhelmingly
outweigh any benefits." "Why would you want nuke engines, anyway?"
"This is absolutely crazy! --- If I was a terrorist I don't see how I
could resist the temptation to blow it over a city. --- Nah, not a
good idea." "Much as I like the idea of nuclear use, I don't know how
you could do nuclear propulsion in the vicinity of an inhabited/able
planet." "The multiple problems of crashing, radioactive emissions
and production hazards seem to be great." "As a semi-informed member
of the public (Physics Ph.D., and a general interest/support of
nuclear power), I really doubt that such a thing can be made to work
safely at any reasonable cost." "I personally think that's just fine,
but with the general populace, the idea will never fly." "Negative,
think of the new dimension it would add to airplane crashes." "--- the
idea of using nuclear reactors to power aircraft is insane." "Too much
risk of radiation release against only a marginal benefit." 'As far as
opinion goes, I'd ride in one, but I was told that the results of the
experiment showed that a properly shielded nuclear reactor is much too
heavy to use for aircraft."
As you can see from the above quotes, opinions very widely. There
are those who feel atomic aircraft are fine, and those who feel the
idea is insane. A few new points were brought up by the replies
too. When the ANP project took place there wasn't any real problem
with terrorists, but now they are a very real risk. Bringing a nuclear
aircraft down on a populated area could cause a great deal of
trouble. The one point that was repeated the most was the simple fact
that planes crash. The military could get around this by operating in
their own airspace away from cities, but a nuclear civilian airliner
would need to get close to cities to be effective. A large number of
crashes occur during take-off and landing, this is when a nuclear
airliner would be the most dangerous to the public.
Personally I don't have any problem with the use if atomic power
for aircraft, and I would fly in one if I believed it was safe. I feel
that as a passenger my odds of dying on an airliner are the same
whether it is chemically powered or powered by a reactor. But why?
Conventional jets have come a long way since the ANP program
ran. Modern airliners have the range for nearly any flight one would
want to make, and as a matter of business airlines don't fly a great
deal of non-stop flights long distance. The nuclear airliner wouldn't
fit the present system. And for the military, the nuclear bomber is a
purely strategic weapon. With the thawing of the cold war there is no
use for such an expensive and complicated system. The B-2 would have
a better chance if ever used, and it is being cut back
drastically.
In this day of curtailed military spending I don't think the ANP
would have ever come about. It took the pressure of the early cold war
years to give it life. The nation was almost constantly on a ready for
war footing, and as time went on we relaxed and began to seriously
look at our projects. The ANP seemed to be unneeded. If the program
had had better guidance perhaps it would have made progress quicker
and produced a flight article before the cold war cooled off. If it
had we may have been introduced to a world of nuclear aircraft. But
that isn't the way it happened, at least not in this universe.
|