"QUANTUM SHOT" #695 Link - article by M. Christian and Avi Abrams
The 1950s: "We Add Nuclear Power To Everything."
Fans of the old, but still wonderful, Road Runner cartoons might remember Wile E. Coyote's favorite one-stop-shop for mayhem: The Acme Company. A clever person – not one of us, alas – once said that Acme's slogan should be "We Add Rockets To Everything."
This, in a kind of round-about way, gets us to the 1950s and the near-obsession that certain engineers had back then with a certain power source. To put it another way, their slogan should have been: "We Add Nuclear Power To Everything."
(Chinese vintage poster - complete with a glowing mother and a nuclear baby! It says "Implement the Basic National Policy", i. e. only one child per family)
Atoms in the Air
In all fairness, at first we thought that reactors have proven – for the most part – to be pretty reliable (we are now re-evaluating this again, in view of recent Japanese disaster). Submarines, commercial power plants, and even monstrous icebreakers have proven that nuclear power can be handy if not essential. But back just a few decades ago there were plans, and even a few terrifying prototypes, that would have made the Coyote green with envy – and the rest of us shudder in terror.
Both the US and the Soviet Union had engineers with lofty plans to keep bombers in the air indefinitely by using nuclear power. Most folks, with even a very basic knowledge of how reactors work, would think that was a bit (ahem) risky, but what's even scarier is how far along some of those plans got.
Take, for example, the various projects the US undertook. In one case, arguably the most advanced, they made plans to power a Convair B-36 Peacemaker bomber with a reactor. Scary? Sure, but what's even more so is that they actually flew the plane, with an operational reactor, a total of 47 times.
While the reactor never actually powered the plane itself, plus there were huge problems to overcome, it didn’t stop the engineers from drawing up plans for a whole plethora of atomic planes (watch video):
A concept for a nuclear-powered X-6, derived from the Convair B-36 (left) and A Northrop concept for a nuclear-propelled bomber, refueling two other aircraft:
And of course, there was always the "Russian Answer" to American nuclear dreams: in this case it's a modified Tu-85 powered with a reactor called the Tu-119:
What was perhaps even crazier than just powered a plane with a nuclear reactor was the idea to use that power source as a weapon. Here, for example, is a beautiful representation of the Douglas 1186 System, which was supposed to use a parasite fighter to guide the warhead to the target – and keep the poor pilot from engine's radiation.
But the craziest of the crazy was the "Flying Crowbar." Not only was the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile (to be formal), aka SLAM (to be short), supposed to be a nuclear bomb deployment system but was also to use a nuclear ramjet drive as a weapon: roasting the ground under it to a Geiger-clicking nightmare while leaving a mushroom-cloud parade of bombs behind it. Shuddering, by the way, would be a perfectly appropriate response. Luckily, the Crowbar never got off the drawing board:
The Soviets, in a literally sky-high dream, even envisioned a new approach to flying their reactors: use a Zeppelin! Here's a nice little propaganda piece on their ideas for an atomic airship:
Leaving the air to the birds, other engineers had different nuclear dreams: In 1958 the Ford Motor Car Company, not satisfied with the success of the Edsel, put forth the idea of bringing radiation into the American home ... or, at least, the garage, with the Nucleon: a family car with an on-board reactor:
While some engineers played with the highways, a few looked to the rails. Though neither the United States of the Soviet Union got very far with powering a locomotive with a reactor, the USSR at least looked far enough ahead to draw up some plans:
Above right image is the American concept of nuclear train: "Of all forms of land transportation, railroads offer the greatest opportunities for the efficient use of nuclear energy". There was no doubt about it in the late 1950s. Here is a German version of the Atomic Locomotive:
Okay, the following views are hardly accurate but think how cool it would have been to get this atomic train set for your birthday - click here.
Still other inventive types, determined to find a new use for the atom, scratched their heads and came up with quite a few interesting, if not dubious, ways of playing with nukes – but this time of the explosive variety. Plowshare is one of the most commonly quoted of those operations intended to put a smiley face in a mushroom cloud. A few of their suggested uses include what they called the Pan-Atomic Canal: in other words, using atomic bombs to widen the Panama Canal. They also suggested using nukes for mining operations, though never really solved the problem of dealing with then-radioactive ore.
It's ironic that -- what with the need to urgently replace our finite and global-warming fossil fuels – that many are suggesting a new look at the power of the atom. We can only hope that we, today, can be as imaginative about it as they used to be back in the 1950s ... and a lot more responsible.
Love and Radiation: (Truly, "Till Death Do Us Part"?)
We add nuclear to everything mainly because it is such a good energy source. it is very clean except from storaging the nuclear waste.
However, when An reactor explodes because of a tjunami and a earthquake, we say that nuclear power is unsafe. Well, any power plant wouldn't have survived those blows.
You've mixed up two concepts that aren't even contemporary.
The SLAM project got as far as a ground-based prototype reactor; google "Project Pluto". It worked. The concept is also applicable to rockets, and there are a goodly number of us who are irritated that irrationality triumphed.
SLAM's exhaust would not have been particularly radioactive, because it used air in a ramjet configuration, and there's nothing in air that gets highly radioactive, or stays radioactive for long. It was supposed to crash into its last target, using radiation as an area-denial weapon.
"Flying crowbar" is a later concept employing non-explosive objects "dropped" from orbit. It would result in what were effectively meteor strikes. The best configuration for the object is a rod, because even if the front burns up on re-entry the back part remains; thus the name.
To amplify what Barray said, the Japanese reactors came through the 9.1 earthquake just fine, and that's more than 10 times stronger than their design criteria. They also came through the tsunami OK. It was the support equipment (backup generators) being destroyed that caused the problem.
Warlocketx - The Smithsonian article on Project Pluto refers to it as "The Flying Crowbar" whether accurate or not.
@Warlocketx- You're kidding, right? SLAM was specifically designed to be a triple threat out tha box. Mach 6 shockwave at 300 feet over any country it's targeted to. That alone would kill hundreds. No, but wait! There's the 15 1.5 to 2 kiloton MIRV's riding on it's back-popping out the top to drop on any target so chosen as it passes by. Wham! Then there's the sweet kiss-off. I quote you- "SLAM's exhaust would not have been particularly radioactive, because it used air in a ramjet configuration, and there's nothing in air that gets highly radioactive, or stays radioactive for long". Are you brain-dead? SLAM was an "open core" reactor, you ferkin dumbass!!!!. That was one of it's point's! It was planned to be flyable for a minimum of three MONTHS over any chosen target with a reactor that had NO SHIELDING AT ALL, spewing little chunks of the core all the way, everywhere it went. Let me reiterate- three months, at mach 6, spewing transuranics with a half-life of 1200 years all the way-plus popping out airdrop nukes wherever it felt like it! One of the reasons it never got off the ground was they never could figure out how to test it safely, or figure out how to dispose of the rig after it was finished, other than crashing it into the deep Pacific....... You're the one who's getting programs mixed up- NERVA is the powerplant you're thinking of- which was never ever meant to be used in atmo. That was meant to be a thruster for outer system propulsion. The program you speak of is "Rods from God", which have no powerplant at all, they are just kinetic energy weapons. SLAM was so insidious that even the designers didn't want to finish it, yet yur dumbbass thinks it was ok.....last point; they were contemporary.Both programs were started by 1957. "Rod's" didn't come along until the mid 70's. Fact-check, brutha
Forty or fifty years ago, I think it was the magazine Atlantic Monthly that ran an article arguing that scientists felt so guilty about inventing the Atom Bomb that they were trying desperately and at times irrationally to find uses of atomic power that would redeem or make up for or atone for what they had done. Regarding fear of dirt or guilt, some argue that a psychological and not necessarily rational attractive of solar power has been that it is so "clean" as compared to the "dirty" (in various ways) other sources of energy. It's almost as if some people want a source of energy as abstract and distant and unearthly as possible.
Two of the test reactors for the US nuclear powered bomber program are on display outside of the public museum at the Idaho National Labs near Arco ID:
I should give you a prize for knowing every link on DRB! (this is the first time I ever put the link again, cause I got excited about Africa again.) Anyway, very pleased with your comment...
It's Uilleann. There are two 'n's in the word. The pipes have three drones (the things sitting on the shoulder of Scottish pipers) and the keyed bits you can see are called 'regulators'. Those are played with the wrist while the hands play the chanter, which is the pipe separated from the others. Sorry, but I had to say something about the spelling. The rest is just me being pedantic.
I seem to recall seeing that the "mystery image" at the bottom was a human version of the "mouse organ" from the monty python sketch - basically pressing a key on a keyboard signalled one of the people in the boxes to make a noise (I can't remember if they were actually made to scream, but it seems unlikely)
The bottom image is of a specific form of punishment where the men were not allowed to see one another, ever. The only outlet was pious singalong. You can see they cannot see one another in any way. The men screamed very loudly and were most enthusiastic. This pleased whichever deity was in fashion that century.
The last image is indeed from a prison. I don't remember if they are watching a priest or listening to a political speech, but it was something like that - let all the prisoners see and hear, but not talk to each other. Definitely not music-related.
Someone once joked that it is a set of experimental toilets :-).
I don't know about some of those instruments...but I would definitely like to get my hands on some of those guitars. The Steampunk Guitar looks particularly awesome to play.
Why isn't Harry Partch mentioned? He made some of the weirdest musical instruments (and music) ever: http://cosmicmachine.blogspot.com/2011_09_25_archive.html
It's not the satellite imagery that's distorting the views in Google Earth, but that Google Earth doesn't understand the concept of a bridge, and renders the satellite image down onto the terrain surface
Oriental dragons are not evil -contrary to western ones-, they are deities, and "traditionally symbolize potent and auspicious powers, particularly control over water, rainfall, hurricane, and floods. The dragon is also a symbol of power, strength, and good luck"!
I believe that the Google Earth problem stems with issues regarding draping a 2D image or photo over a 3D triangulated irregular network. This can be a common problem in GIS.
Thank you Charlie - we changed the text to better reflect the words of the artist: "When we are threatened by evil, "it" will appear before us in the form of the dragon and prevent the evil with its fierce face and roar then bring peace to us. After that, "it" will transform into the form of the flower to continue quietly watching our peaceful life."
Cranes of this type have experienced some fatal accidents, in which the boom snapped off. All booms of these cranes have been recalled to the factory for solving this production error.
|
12 Comments:
We add nuclear to everything mainly because it is such a good energy source. it is very clean except from storaging the nuclear waste.
However, when An reactor explodes because of a tjunami and a earthquake, we say that nuclear power is unsafe. Well, any power plant wouldn't have survived those blows.
For more benefits and disadvantages of nuclear enery.
You've mixed up two concepts that aren't even contemporary.
The SLAM project got as far as a ground-based prototype reactor; google "Project Pluto". It worked. The concept is also applicable to rockets, and there are a goodly number of us who are irritated that irrationality triumphed.
SLAM's exhaust would not have been particularly radioactive, because it used air in a ramjet configuration, and there's nothing in air that gets highly radioactive, or stays radioactive for long. It was supposed to crash into its last target, using radiation as an area-denial weapon.
"Flying crowbar" is a later concept employing non-explosive objects "dropped" from orbit. It would result in what were effectively meteor strikes. The best configuration for the object is a rod, because even if the front burns up on re-entry the back part remains; thus the name.
Can I juat say that 'Implement the basic National Policy' is about the least-inspiring rallying cry ever?
You forgot to add the awesome nuclear lighthouses that are all over Russia:
http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=6901
To amplify what Barray said, the Japanese reactors came through the 9.1 earthquake just fine, and that's more than 10 times stronger than their design criteria. They also came through the tsunami OK. It was the support equipment (backup generators) being destroyed that caused the problem.
Warlocketx - The Smithsonian article on Project Pluto refers to it as "The Flying Crowbar" whether accurate or not.
- Jack
Don't forget spaceships: Check out Project Orion, the nuclear-bomb pulse drive...
@Warlocketx-
You're kidding, right? SLAM was specifically designed to be a triple threat out tha box. Mach 6 shockwave at
300 feet over any country it's targeted to. That alone would kill hundreds. No, but wait! There's the 15 1.5 to 2 kiloton MIRV's riding on it's back-popping out the top to drop on any target so chosen as it passes by. Wham!
Then there's the sweet kiss-off. I quote you- "SLAM's exhaust would not have been particularly radioactive, because it used air in a ramjet configuration, and there's nothing in air that gets highly radioactive, or stays radioactive for long".
Are you brain-dead? SLAM was an "open core" reactor, you ferkin dumbass!!!!. That was one of it's point's! It was planned to be flyable for a minimum of three MONTHS over any chosen target with a reactor that had NO SHIELDING AT ALL, spewing little chunks of the core all the way, everywhere it went.
Let me reiterate- three months, at mach 6, spewing transuranics with a half-life of 1200 years all the way-plus popping out airdrop nukes wherever it felt like it!
One of the reasons it never got off the ground was they never could figure out how to test it safely, or figure out how to dispose of the rig after it was finished, other than crashing it into the deep Pacific.......
You're the one who's getting programs mixed up- NERVA is the powerplant you're thinking of- which was never ever meant to be used in atmo. That was meant to be a thruster for outer system propulsion. The program you speak of is "Rods from God", which have no powerplant at all, they are just kinetic energy weapons.
SLAM was so insidious that even the designers didn't want to finish it, yet yur dumbbass thinks it was ok.....last point; they were contemporary.Both programs were started by 1957. "Rod's" didn't come along until the mid 70's. Fact-check, brutha
Definitely some fascinating projects, a little scary that there were nuclear reactors flying around in the sky though. Loved this post.
Forty or fifty years ago, I think it was the magazine Atlantic Monthly that ran an article arguing that scientists felt so guilty about inventing the Atom Bomb that they were trying desperately and at times irrationally to find uses of atomic power that would redeem or make up for or atone for what they had done. Regarding fear of dirt or guilt, some argue that a psychological and not necessarily rational attractive of solar power has been that it is so "clean" as compared to the "dirty" (in various ways) other sources of energy. It's almost as if some people want a source of energy as abstract and distant and unearthly as possible.
We did write about Nuclear Spaceships: Project Orion - check out http://tinyurl.com/3s8knj
Two of the test reactors for the US nuclear powered bomber program are on display outside of the public museum at the Idaho National Labs near Arco ID:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Aircraft_Reactors_Arco_ID_2009.jpg
1955 - communistic Czechoslovakia - atomic flying harvester
http://vtm.zive.cz/clanek/1955-letajici-atomovy-kombajn
Post a Comment
<< Home