Timeline for How did Northrop Grumman propose to make the Global Hawk nuclear powered?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:28 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 12, 2019 at 22:24 | history | edited | Vikki |
Tagging.
|
|
| Apr 7, 2018 at 6:29 | vote | accept | uhoh | ||
| Apr 5, 2018 at 1:08 | comment | added | A. I. Breveleri | You know, if a nuclear UAV didn't want to RTB there's not much the operators could do about it -- it could remain an airborne menace for years. | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 0:01 | answer | added | Hephaestus Aetnaean | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 4, 2018 at 21:33 | comment | added | Hephaestus Aetnaean | @uhoh - see the bottom of jCisco's article for a discussion of compact nuclear reactors. Small reactors exist cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0023932.A5.pdf, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Flux_Isotope_Reactor. Even in the Pluto/SLAM days, a "conventional" reactor could already power small vehicles like cruise missiles and potentially recon drones. Even Sandia's 2012 paper for a nuclear UAV for Northrop suggests a mature/conventional reactor: fas.org/irp/eprint/sand-uav.pdf. I don't think the explanation requires exotic schemes, eg Hafnium nuclear isomers. | |
| Apr 4, 2018 at 18:28 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 4, 2018 at 19:05 | |||||
| Apr 4, 2018 at 7:54 | comment | added | uhoh | @jCisco that is an excellent article, thanks! I think the plan for the Global Hawk did not include a conventional reactor based on fissionable material, but instead called for something more unusual. | |
| Apr 4, 2018 at 7:45 | history | edited | uhoh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| Mar 30, 2018 at 9:59 | answer | added | tj1000 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 30, 2018 at 2:52 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAviation/status/979552034100740096 | ||
| Mar 30, 2018 at 1:59 | comment | added | jCisco | This article explains the technology available for nuclear powered flight Putins Nuclear Power Missile | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 8:24 | comment | added | uhoh | @qqjkztd that's better than using a rotating shaft connecting the two and a pair of constant velocity joints; one at the propeller and the other at the motor co-located with the nuclear power plant. | |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 5:32 | history | edited | uhoh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Mar 28, 2018 at 5:26 | history | asked | uhoh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |