This originated on the /r/worldbuilding subreddit. Someone had created it as a fun scifi CGI project. The keyword being fiction. It is not and never was meant to be any sort of real proposal for a real product, for a lot of obvious reasons. It is absolutely mind-boggling to see supposedly serious news channels take it up as some sort of serious proposal.
they are obviously not news channels, and love to mislabel themselfes as "news" To understand/feel what the channel let happen to itself to degrade from "imformative news" to "political commercial talk show", play the game "not for broadcast".
Idiocracy. When you have no self awareness or ability to asses something you know absolutely nothing about this is what we get parroted around the world. There are some of us that know our limitations and understand that we don't know everything so we keep our mouths shut and educate ourselves. The non technical types just spew BS & nonsense for clicks.
Un-real. I just can't comprehend how people can trip over themselves for consumable crap like this, but when we were digging tunnels in Texas to build the SSC, people griped about it being too expensive... Imagine what we could have learned.
So I'm a private pilot, currently studying to be an airline pilot. It brings me immense pain to see people treating this like it's a serious proposal. Thank you for making this.
There are not many people that know enough about physics to debunk this. I'm not very stupid and I didn't think "impossible" when I saw the picture. But when I heard the information about the flying time and the things inside as well as the numbers of passengers, that was my moment of "won't do". Currently we use planes for transportation of people and freight. The only time in history when air traffic was used like a cruise ship, was about 100 years ago with those "Zeppelins". And even that was not retried with modern technology.
Just because the model isn't perfect doesn't mean it can't be achieved. It means they need to adjust the wrong span and weight distribution. The concept isn't flawed, it just needs to be designed properly. Remember, this is the same guy claiming Space X is a failure in spite of having better tech than NASA on a much smaller budget.
If there's one thing I learned from watching Thunderf00t, it's if you're pretty good at rendering 3d animation on a computer, you can run a pretty lucrative scam.
It makes me think I picked the wrong career. Why did I go into the field of automation and robotics when I could've learned to draw some cartoons and convinced people to give me millions of dollars?
@@sicfxmusic "You know your run is over . . . " If only that were true. People, that is to say the *_majority_* of people, see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe. If someone is promising them unicorns, they'll be far too excited about the prospect to ever consider paying attention to some 'luddite' scientist trying to remind them that there is no such thing as a unicorn. All the sense, all the reason, all the information and evidence in the world won't be able to convince them to give up the fantasy. Just like all the others, this scam will keep on running, steadily pulling in money from idiot investors and probably a few drug cartels looking for ways to launder their cash. They'll keep it going right up to the point at which they would be expected to start unveiling prototypes, when they'll fold things up and disappear. Give them a year or two to burn through the money, and they'll pop up again with a similarly ludicrous idea for some 'new mode of transport.' Rinse, and repeat. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
The Fallout also depends on how the core is made If its fission, it would be big boom If its fusion tho, it would just fizzle out and stall once the containment systems fail, and most of the damage would occur to the reactor, with some possibly damaging the outer wall, but that damage would be minor. This would be bad for the plane as it would have no power, but at least the fallout was nearly nothing Tho we are still trying to figure out fusion and how to actually make fusion feasible, as like yk, 100 million degrees and strong electromagnetic containment=lots of energy consumed in the process of simply sustaining fusion
So...this wasn't real. It was from some Reddit where they do creative conceptual art. Then someone 3D modeled it and made a commercial out of it. The fact that these many people believe it is fantastic! I honestly didn't expect to see a debunking video of this. I thought most reasonable people knew this wasn't real.
Indeed. This was a post on r/worldbuilding. The guy who made it was very surprised that news outlets were running with it as if it's a real concept. Which really shows just how eager news outlets are to get on board with these cgi trailers..
@@moshunit96 To be fair, it seems like this is one of those things that's just getting attention to distract us from those bleak stock market numbers that sometimes show up on the screen while he's rambling about this non-starter idea
These hack media outlets need to find content to fill 24 hours 7 days a week. They're going to report on absolutely every stupid thing that shows up on the internet.
I was a Machinist Mate on a Nimitz, and worked with the reactors. Thinking about getting 2k of those things to fly is one of the funniest things I've heard in ages. Good luck.
I son't see many countries allowing a plane powered by fission reactor fly in their air space. There are a couple prototype fusion reactors currently in operation but they still have a way to go and the prototype fusion reactors are giant.
So from what I understand, this was someone dicking around on the internet having fun learning a new software and building some sci-fi machine with that. It wasn't meant as a serious concept but for some reason some crazzyass journos reported on it as if it were a legit idea.
@@pitsahat2 This seems legit because the model doesn't even try to be plausible, it really looks like someone learning or messing around with a silly design.
I can't imagine what the drag coefficient on such a monstrosity would be, its proportions are all wrong for any sort of efficient flight, let alone being capable of making an emergency landing. You can forget landing this thing anywhere near where port is with any reliability, it has got so much mass that its stopping distance is probably going to be a royal pain to reliably use, so a fair portion of its landing period is going to be it propelling itself through the water, probably at a measly 6-7 miles per hour? And then you have the problem of if we have the materials to actually make a structure that big rigid enough to not collapse under its own weight when it lands; material science works on cross sections, so what are the odds that the first time this behemoth lands its wings just shear off and fall to the sides? The mental gymnastics of what all you need to have ignored to think this a 'reasonable' proposal is purely astounding.
Ignored? No, you can't ignore something you can't even hope to understand. You can thank the US education system for pumping out people that don't think, or care to do so. Thinking people like us don't understand idiots.
Just goes to show you, if you can CGI it, people will believe it. As someone who was around when the internet was new, I always thought that with the advent of more information at your fingertips people would become more discerning with the information they receive. How wrong I was.
The NB-36H actually flew with an operating reactor for a total of 89 hours between 1955 and 1957. However, the reactor did not power the aircraft. This aircraft was used only to experiment with shielding for the crew.
@@technoman9000 Great joke:)) But thermal reactor performance and the TNT explosion equivalent are not values you can interchange 1:1. Lets just acknowledge that Derryn is a god in creating confusion, hehehe. Did he mean 1000 tons weight, explosion or was it a typo/misconception/lack of knowledge. Really the work of an -troll- expert! (or not??? **g** )
As an aeronautical engineer, the aerodynamics are also extremely dubious... but... hey, this was created as a fun piece of entertainment, the visual quality is excellent and I guess that the creators really enjoyed making it... the fact that some idiots believed it all will have made their day! I say bravo to them... Thunderbirds are go once again!
Man, I lived and breathed thunderbirds when I was a kid. I had one of the thunderbird 2 as a kid in the 60's and too bad I played with it. Lost the red rockets off the back and the little yellow feet broke almost immediately. It would be worth a fortune now :-( I also love how "the ignorant" blame government for stifling creativity. It isn't the government, it's physics. Not to mention simple common sense. (Like AOC's railway to Hawaii). The amount of energy and materials that would go into such a vehicle would cost trillions for nothing more than "fun in the sky". I got raked over the coals for "killing her dreams" when my niece had a dream of winning American Idol. I said to her "that's all well and good, but can you sing like Whitney Houston"? No. "well, she might not win it if she entered not because of her voice, but because of her stage presence" Even with her voice she might not win. Maybe instead you should have a dream of "feeding your freaking kids and getting an education and then earning your way instead of a next to impossible fantasy"? I didn't even watch one video on this POS because one look at it and anyone with half a brain would think "that's not gonna work". It's no different than designing a 1000 story office building that stands on a single pillar 24" in diameter.
I was thinking their Aero-engineer.... It requires with a modest rocket... 17 tonnes of fuel for 2 tonnes of additional (cargo weight) to reach escape velocity and get o 5 km/s of orbit... With that in mind... we coudl build a orbiting city in space. by building a massive station that can maintain its orbit.... If one watned to build a city.. what would its weight be? what would the materials be.. and how should it? What do you think if its a city.. of say 1000 people.. what the required energy needed and fuel to make it... hmmm ,but ti is doable.
@@artemirrlazaris7406 and how much energy and pollution would be produced to get all that material into orbit? and don't forget about all the CO2 those people would produce and all the oxygen they'd require. Not to mention all the food they'd need to consume and all the waste that would need to be dealt with. Each person would require about 1 lbs of food per meal or 3000 lbs x 3 meals per day = 9000 lbs per day approx that's 270,000 lbs per month. even if you 1/4 that by using compacting tech that's still 80,000 lbs per month. The only way it would be feasible is if you used protein resequencers like they do on star trek. Know what that does? turns poo into food. Now let's talk about water. Each person is supposed to consume 8 8oz glasses of water per day. That's 8 thousand x 8 oz or 65,000 oz per day of liquid water. That's 507 gallons, PER DAY.
@@muskokamike127 Well... I don't eat.. 3 lbs a day, but I definitely drink maybe a pound of water a day, I think those weight averages are quite high... yeah its good to think about. Not sure on the space station... Various human groups have different eating cycles and still maintain a healthy system, hmm. I think the numbers are quite high, I don't drink that much water perday ever... I wonder what these averages are based on... There are people that consume very little. Water is pretty easy to clean and resource, and the waste materials are important chemicals that can be utilized for cleaning and other various reactions. The body only demands what it needs thus the environment humidity and temp effect the desired water. Hmm. Japan had that white good that takes anything and make it edible food. Mostly be supplements with some sort of food base.... The weight doesn't concern me... the payloads deliver 2 tonnes a day of building materail. The intersting thing is, the engineering and design has ot change from the lack of gravity, which benfits for being able to have large skeletal chells in space, Big volumes... Whihc is lighter ... various ways ot make compartments and self sealign systems. 1000 people city.... THe point I guess would have a a space crew on rotation between visiters... 5-15 that run operations... Using science one can cook in various ways for food prep since one side ofhte sun directly hitting is about 250 celsius... and the other side is cold.... The weight isn't much since its weightless its the getting it up there are creating a cyclic system... in re-engineering materials... What is interesting about space and orbit, is the type of metal work or 3d printing you could do with other people. Yesterday, I had about 32 ounzes of water hot day, and 2.4 pounds of food. I call that a pretty big eats' day, lol. My weight was 224... but I was running and burning ... 500 cals per run over 5 days... missed one day... 2000 cal workout plus working and plus random walks... Took me down ot 216... hmm.. Then there is fasting if its a commerical or short term stay. The thing is once you invest in building the system it would be self perpetual... of course you don't need super large engines, but yo uwould haveto have quite a few, to ensure perpetuity during maintenance of energy systems. BAttery power seems ot be the best wa,y but cheaper method is a rocket to aid and assist if it becomes into orbital decay. the largest problem I guess is it falling back to earth and crushing people/ cities etc. If yo umade a 5 year project... sent up a rocket the first year with 2 tonnes of supplies for the engine nad base... You have about 150 tonnes of material the first year to work with that would be in geo syn orbit... being put together.... then once hte base foundation is layed.... could lauch... rockets every 1-2 days from various nations... 680 tonnes of whatever material.. over 4 years... should be able to build the structure over five years... Those invovled get ot be space trades.. the first ever of their kind... With a modular design, most can be pre made earth nad hten jsut connected in space. so it is a possiblity... the weight nad expense is really nothing, since its just an action to do... Looking through the cities of the earth, some cities have fantastic waste processing etc... reduce recycle, reuse... out ofhte estimated waste of 270 lbs of waste perday... which I do think is a bit high, most could be converted into something else... it slike using plants for mineral or mining, verse diging directly into hte crush, various forms of use one can utlize in a system... If I recorded how much I consume in a month... I htink I fall way below those numbers... so the best trade or age group might be female 40-60 for the work, since they consume quite a bit less... Young males and females can eat quite a bit, but culture wise some females eat like waifes... I guess... like nothing and yet are healthy and maintain their steady decay delcine of hteir systems. SO it is possible, and the modular design in the mid building phase could be built so it can also be removed to adapt ot thigns we learn from oeprating a city in space, pretty sure processsing and piping and many other factors would have to change.... After 5 years... can about 4000 tonnes/ 4,000,000 lbs of material be enough for said such a system. The cost is neglible, since it just requires intelligence and the production of works. Meaning the men that owuld be employed value the task/ work over money to the relation of that work, not caught up in the idiot house... just a very different male/ female groups... bcause their mind isn't whiny based on money but logically defined in a reality of systems nad possiblities... The cost... in how the liars would see it as... 450 trillion dollars.. but in reality is jsuta group of people colelctivating their works for a goal.. costs nothing as the base human currency is communication, not paper or gold. its why we kill. lol and protect values and not the monetary value sense... to do that would pervert ones talos and ruin ones mind...
@@artemirrlazaris7406 that is pre-cooked weight of the food. For eg: an 4 oz hamburger after all the fixin's is probably closer to 8 oz, AFTER cooking....then you add in fries and you're pushing 1 lbs. Then if you have a balanced dinner, probably more than a pound. I buy chicken breasts in packs of 3 that weigh 1 kg which is 2.2 lbs for 3. So 1 will be 3/4 lb. Now add in any veggies and you're over a lbs. BTW: I know people who eat 2 to 3 lbs PER MEAL. I knew one woman who ate more for lunch than I did in 2 days.
Minor note (that doesn’t change the result), when you calculated the 150MW, that’s thermal power. Actual jet engines are 20-30% efficient, so the shaft power of a typical jet (spread across the engines) is going to be 30-50MW. So the carrier comparison isn’t exactly right, as the 150MW on the carrier is shaft power. So the more appropriate comparison would be to compare thermal power, so you’d _only_ need 1/3rd of all the reactors in the US. Lol.
Apparently, with nuclear subs, 70% of their reactor's heat is released to the surrounding water, so it would seem they're only 30% efficient as well. Presumably carriers would be the same. In fact, the submarine is a much better comparison than the carrier, as they have 150-160 MW reactors and weigh 20K-25K tons, which is right in line with this proposed plane.
Modern large jets are nowhere near 20-30% thermal efficiency. Those are typical numbers for engines from the 50s and 60s. Today they’re well above 40%, nudging very close to 50%. The biggest contributing factor for this advance is the increase in pressure ratios throughout the years. A late 50s early 60s jet engine would have something like a 16:1 OPR (eg JT3D). Modern large jets are now available with 60:1 (eg GE9X).
The "proposal" for the air-hotel was to use electric turbines to produce thrust and not jet engines, so maybe they could be more efficient, so the 150mw calculation for a jet airliner doesn't really have any bearing on the power requirements of this beast. Not that it makes the thing any less stupid.... But I question the methodology behind those power calculations in this video.
@@TheOtherClips I mean if it is thermal power that is the maximum energy output period so if it cant even support it with an 100% effecient engine then nothing will
Do people understand what tensile strength means. Just the engineering alone that goes into keeping a 60 story building from collapsing under its own weight is quite a marvel of engineering. This thing wouldn't be able to support it's own weight let alone take off.
What does the tensile strength have to do with it? Surely it would largely be due to compressive strength? Or even giant bending moments? Although yes holding its own weight would be a struggle to say the least.
I love how they throw lots of science-related terms to convince people that aren't very informed on these kinds of topics like "Look at this nuclear powered fully electric aerodynamic supersonic carbon-neutral sky hotel with artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency NFTs that are self-sustainable through biodegradable robots that won't form a union!"
It's called "technobabble".. Definition : _Technical or scientific language used in fiction to convey a false impression of meaningful technical or scientific content_ . I was half expecting to see Musk behind this bollocks, he's full of it.
@@dukenukem5768 I have enough of Musk, he's the personification of technobabble. Most YT thumbnails just slap an image of his face in all tech related videos, it's unsufferable
One thing I think he got wrong is the power needed. It would be best if you used electric turbines. You don't have to worry about battery weight (because imagination). You already have a nuclear power plant just use it for electricity generation. Normal jets engines have 55% Efficiency. So instead of 90 MW instead of 150MW. not like any of this is even kinda realistic outside of space.
The circles look like farming units, where the watering system basically rotates around a central point! The are still in use today in areas where water is scares.
This is so completely ridiculous, there is literally already an enormous mobile hotel industry that runs on the dirtiest possible diesel fuel..... Cruise ships... Nuclear powered ships are nothing new, so maybe they should start with nuclear powered cruise ships instead of something so astonishingly ridiculous, but then again you need something ridiculous to get money for a scam...
Diesel fuel actually burns cleaner and gets better fuel economy than regular fuel. More Indoctrination you received. All facts you can look up. Hence why Deisel is more expensive. It's higher grade.
Considering that the primary market for cruise ships are older people who grew up ir witnessed chernobyl, nuclear powered cruiseships would probably be so unjustifiably feared that they would be unprofitable
There was NS Savannah first and only nuclear powered cruise ship. It was very popular among the people. But after 5 years they couldn't continue passenger service. It was not profitable. The cost kf maintaining the reactor was to high. But the design worked as intended and there was no incident or radiation leaking.
Love the “Big Bus” references!!! My question is, does the nuclear cruise plane have “the flags of all nations” that they raised in order to increase drag?
i LOVE how their computer model flies high above the clouds with all its wheels in the landing-position, unlike large military transport planes. Yes, such huge airplanes are best as water-landers without any wheels ever, because building a runway just for them is not worth it. nuclear flying hotel planes make great craters at the pentagon or at Manhattan-Island. Not very large craters, but they smell very bad for a lot of years. I remember the nuclear-powered-bus-desaster movie. The self-washing ability is a cute checkows gun. And the jets only at the back of course go GREAT with the hinge in the center of the bus.
The largest airlift planes in recent history have had fixed gear or semi-fixed gear. See the Russian (later Ukranian) AAN, recently destroyed (it was in a museum I believe, but still an 80's era plane, I think)
I lost it when they said “Powered by nuclear fusion”🤣 My dad worked designing fusion reactors for UKAEA @ Harwell & Culham, since the 50’s & to date they still haven’t got a working reactor.
@@ericgulseth74 It's always 20 years out due to a lack of funding. It's also the holy grail of energy production. It was never supposed to be easy or quick.
@@noname7271 its only the holy grail of energy production if you have enough fuel to power them (a problem for D-T fusion reactors) and their fusion energy gain factor (Q) is higher than commercial break even, otherwise it's the grail shaped beacon of Castle Anthrax of energy production.
Dude this could totally work, you just have to slap a couple of solar panels on the wings and stuff, oh oh and you could also build a hyperloop type of thing to slingshot it off the ground - from an underground tunnel and stuff. And you forgot to consider the fact that this hotel would have free WiFi because of starlink.
My favorite part of the plane is the massive observation disc deck thing they have completely obstructing the tail making it impossible to steer in the air and the ridiculous glass dome thing on the back that destroys the aerodynamics of the plane.
Add to this the square windows in the center dome. Those things will crack instantly. There is a reason every jet window has been an oval ever since the De Havilland Comet developed stress cracks around its windows.
It’s like the people who designed the nuclear plane. Have no idea how aerodynamics or actual airplanes work. They just sort of made something airplane shaped.
I just bet that observation deck is also "designed" to rotate to offer amazing 360 degree views... and insure everyone is evenly cooked by the reactors lol.
I agree the whole thing is ridiculous, but I should point out that an aircraft is not steered in the air with the tail (or rudder for that matter). On the ground, yes, but not in the air, where the rudder introduces yaw, which at a very basic level changes where the aircraft is 'pointing.' It doesn't make it turn though, the aircraft will still travel on its original heading. Those videos of aircraft landing in strong crosswinds where the nose is not pointing directly down the runway but the aircraft is travelling in line with the runway. That's yaw.
Just a side note. Those 5000 MW numbers are for the entire nuclear power station, not a single reactor. Typically one reactor seems to be between 500 and 1000 MW.
Wow, I can't wait for airports to rebuild their runways to 20km ones just for this single airplane. *assuming it runs on magic and can be the displayed size, I also wish someone calculated its approximate weight and if any runway in the world can handle it without instantly cracking* I mean, look at that thing. Its single wheel is twice the diameter of Airbus A380)
There's also that one major issue where the mass of something as it gets bigger goes up with the cub of the dimensions, but most of the things that go into making it work - thrust, lift, load bearing capacity of it's structure, only goes up with the square of the dimensions.
There was an aircraft that flew with a nuclear reactor on board - the Convair NB-36H. The reactor was 1MW, weighed in at 16t. There was heavy shielding around the crew section, but nowhere else. The crew section weighed 11t, from Wiki. The reactor was not actually used to power anything in the flight tests. Also, i believe the blurb said that it was a nuclear fusion reactor, which would be a neat achievement considering no-one has managed to get a viable fusion reactor working at this time. The propulsion would come form electric motors driving big fans. I wonder how that would compare, in thrust/weight, to the heat/jet method that was to be used in the nuclear bomber in the 1950s.
I remember reading that the props on the B-36 would be powered by steam created by the heat from the reactors, not electric motors. Another method was to use the heat to compress the air instead of using traditional compressors in jet engines.
Internal combustion engines, like jet engines or piston engines, are just heat pumps. They induct cool air in, combust fuel to generate heat, and that heat increases the pressure of the air. The pressure increase is exchanged to a volume increase, driving the piston or exhaust turbine. Nuclear Power Plants would then be external "combustion" engines, like steam engines. Steam engines, nuclear plants, coal plants, and natural gas plants all use an external heat source to heat the air inside the engine, usually a steam turbine instead of an exhaust turbine like on a jet engine. So, a nuclear powered jet engine would use superheated air or steam coming from the reactor to drive the exhaust turbine. The more efficient approach would be to run a steam turbine in each engine, with the output shaft connected to a giant ducted fan instead of a generator. Modern Turbofan jet engines in airliners operate more closely to the turboshaft engines in helicopters, than turbojets in fighter jets. Theres a small jet engine in the core of the engine, it has an output shaft from the exhaust turbine powering not only the compressor turbine on the jet, but also an enormous ducted bypass fan around to core of the engine. Most of the thrust from a commercial jet turbofan comes from the bypass fan, and not from the jet engine at the core. So, a nuclear engine would be best constructed by replacing the core turboshaft engine with a steam turbine, and the bypass fan being turned by the steam turbine. It'd be ridiculously energy efficient, much more so than electric motors and generators, and the bypass air would be excellent for cooling the steam turbine for increased efficiency. The problem is still shielding everything, and condensing your steam back into water.
The Soviets reportedly also flew a nuclear powered plane - actually powered by the reactor. It worked, sort of. It also irradiated the entire crew, because the only way they could get it to work was to skip on the shielding...
@@mellusk9194 Using steam turbines to drive a propeller was one way considered. The proposed nuclear bomber was to be jet powered and, possibly, supersonic. The "jet engine" worked very much like a regular jet engine, but with heat from the nuclear reactor added to the the air instead of heat from burning fuel in the combustion chamber.
@@mellusk9194 the idea is it would have 4 "jet" type engines powered by the reactor. They were mounted just below the bomb bay installed reactor on the belly of the NB-36
11:48 You're getting loads of drag, with all those cross-struts. Plus, having wings located so close together creates interference, reducing the overall lift.
Biplanes still generate more lift than a monoplane, but only by 20%, which is disproportionate to the increase in drag. This effectively limits biplanes to applications where maximizing lift and control surface area takes priority over reducing drag, such as low speed stunt aircraft.
The guy who created the video has said he was just playing around with the software in order to learn it. He created it as a joke but somehow the world media took it as if it is a serious project that is in development. Explains why they keep falling for every vaporware company that makes a fancy cgi render. This guy should have gone to Musk with his render and cashed in on Tesla Cruise Lines TM.
The "this will irradiate the pilot, because shielding is difficult" reminds me of Pacific Rim. The first Jaeger pilot (can't remember his name) specifically suffered from radiation poisoning because they didn't have proper shielding on the nuclear reactor.
The first thing I thought of when I saw this ridiculous plane, was that episode of the Simpsons, where Homer designs a car. So yeah, allowing stupid, ignorant people to design modes of transport, is really not a good idea. On the other hand, providing them with a nice "hug yourself" jacket and a well padded room, is definitely a good idea.
@@DermotKieran1 the designer made the thing for fun but media thought it was something that was meant to be real. he's actually making a pretty cool sci-fi movie
The amount of power needed to make it fly doesn't even enter into it. To make an airplane fly you need lift, which is generated by the wings. The larger the surface area or the higher the speed, the more lift is generated. Look at the wings on this thing! Strapping 20 engines to it won't mean shit.
Exactly, I have a friend how is an aeronautical engineer, I guess some of the conversations we've had have left a mark... when I first saw the image on this monster, I first thought about lift... never mind power, even if power was properly addressed, this cube (for all intents and purposes, it does look like a cube) will never generate enough lift to get all that weight off the ground... Also, the other thing that I could never shake off is, sure, say you manage to clear all technological hurdles, and get it to fly for years, how about food and sewage? The fact so many media organizations thought this was a newsworthy story highlights the fact that our society is inching closer to Idiocracy every day, and that si worrisome.
Yeah I checked the weight of a nuclear submarine engine, the core reactor on its own weighs 110 tons according to Wiki but about ten times more including the shielding and cooling, so non starter for flight. The irrigation circles got me thinking that it wouldn't be too hard to trigger the pipe to spray out the end where the 4 circles intersect as it seems like they could irrigate those bits too, maybe I'm underestimating the size of that space and the pressure required to spray that far, would at the very least require a separate pipe
My understanding is that, at least as far as some of those irrigation systems, the pipes aren't underground, but instead mounted above on a long boom that has a motorized wheel at the end, and it goes in a circle raining the water down from above. Sort of a different take on the old sprinklers that make the "chat chat" noise and use a bouncing weight and a spring to make it move and turn.
First off if you look at the wings, there are engines along the the whole wing. Airplanes fly based on the the shape of the wing and the way the air goes over it unobtrusively. The wing and engine configuration is completely non workable. Also, if it has a problem and had to land there's probably only a few airports in the world that have a long enough runway to accommodate it. Another issue would be that the airplane would have to drop a mountain of sewage into the ocean probably every other day.
Meh, you missed the funnier bit... based on the diagram they briefly showed, those were conventional jet engines that work by expanding gas in the combustion chamber when burning the fuel. The same effect obviously doesn't exist in an electric engine, which is the best you can get with a nuclear power plant inside of the plane, so a slightly more realistic model would use propellers instead (like the avengers'). The only other known option is what the US tried in the prototype TF showed in the video and involves compressing the air directly using the heat from the nuclear fusion reaction... in other words irradiating the ** out of the the atmosphere whenever the plane went.
Look up the Convair NB-36, a heavily modified Peacemaker strategic bomber with a nuclear reactor on board. It flew quite a few times with the reactor running, but I don't think it was ever used to actually power the engines.
The US (back in the 50s and 60s) actually tried to make the bomber force a bit more permanently airborne by running the electric engines off of power from a Thorium fueled/molten salt cooled reactor. They never got it to the functional test/prototype stage since they couldn't miniaturize the reactor enough.
No Thorium was never intended as a fuel for an Aircraft Reactor. If they were ever to make a final aircraft, they would have used weapons grade U235 or Pu239 in order to keep things as light and small as possible.
1:14 a bowling alley is probably the worst thing you could put on a bus. Any time there is a small bump on the road, or the bus accelerates in any direction, it will skew your throw, meanwhile taking a huge amount of space away.
As soon as I saw this on my feed, I knew that a. this would reviewed by Thunderf00t, and b. this is seriously just the set up for another Bioshock game. Thank you for taking the time to bust this.
I already want to play it. I can see the setup now. The economy completely failed while the plane kept flying for years and years and now no one is still alive knows how to land it.
I actually did a presentation about that nuclear powered plane in my first year of mechanical engineering. The first slide was "nuclear planes, sounds like a bad idea right?" which caused quite a bit of laughter from first year students. If you can't impress first year students in engineering you either have a huge ace up your sleeves.... But more likely your idea is really bad 😶
The Airforce when they looked into nuclear power planes many years ago realized they'd need a much smaller lighter weight reactor then anything the current technology could give them. This led to the development of the first LFTR reactors. Unfortunately for technical reasons LFTR's just don't work with current materials we have to build them out of so completely impractical until someone solves those issues. But if there is anyway to get a nuclear reactor small enough, light enough and with enough juice nuclear planes are totally doable. Still probably a bad idea, but doable.
@@lunaticbz3594 I like it (irony!) when people[1] ignore facts in a causal chain that they don't like or which do not fit the ideology/premise/their cause. We know what power is needed to drive a plane/vehicle. We can also calculate which radiation occurs for a fission reactor of performance class X and which must also be shielded accordingly. None of these quantities can be debated either, they are subject to the physical laws of our nature. We know the values as they are now and here, as they will be in 1000 or a million years[3]. It doesn't matter. Atomic Planes will never(NEVER!) be an option, we can f'n calculate that!!! [2]. If you don't care about the pilots and passengers dying early and the cargo being contaminated, then of course it would work or you would somehow omit both[4] ... But that is what I mentioned in my first sentence: A plane not transporting something ... makes no sense! And lets not discuss maintainability and crashes:/ [1] I don't especially meant you with that, but "The Airforce" which you "cited" and you don't feel the need to give a source. Oh and ... you are so vague for exactly what reason? see [5] [2] At that point in the discussion usually "the magical MacGuffin" comes up. First nothing other for shielding exists NOW and that mass is needed ... and USS-Enterprise-like science fiction energy shields would need, you guess it, energy. In fact equal or more than the power that the reactor produces, so NO! [3] Next "MacGuffin" is the fusion reactor. Best one of those Marty McFly ones you can put in you jeans-pocket. Again, physical laws we know, young padawan. Good luck with the family planning (or better: your immediate death). [4] Most of those "I wish/I hope/"-technology fantasies are dreams fueled by half-knowledge and ignorance. Hopes will bring an real engineer to only one place: Into JAIL! [5] WTF are you talking about ("don't work with current materials...", etc.). The NEPA-Program reactors (1954), shown IN THE VIDEO are functioning LFTR's. And I say it again: Just because you don't understand the technology and the physical laws behind them, a reactor won't need LESS shielding. That radiation IS the source of power. So your whole train of though up there makes no sense! Sorry, but it really makes no sense:)
@@jonathanodude6660 LFTR has a ton of potential, you can build them small, or huge its easy to scale, way more efficient, can't have a runaway reaction. Fuel's much more plentiful. There's also the claim that it be impossible to make a bomb from it. That claim's not entirely true but it would take a lot of work. The hype around it isn't really unwarranted it could solve our energy problems rather quickly. We can and have built them before, we know they work. But fluorene salts heated to several hundred degrees Celsius does have a tendency to eat through most materials you'd build a reactor out of. I'm not sure how much progress has been made over the years but the one the Airforce built made it 3 days before the reactor was destroyed, and every part would have to be replaced. Which ruins the economic feasibility when your reactor only lasts a few days. This is the type of problem that could be solved tomorrow, or 50 years from now. Just needs a leap in material sciences, and material sciences have and are advancing quickly so I think we inevitably will figure this out.. Don't know when though.
@@lunaticbz3594 we get into the issue I have with next gen fission techniques in that there’s a big chance that we solve fusion first and then the research is for nothing. Current gen fission is quite good and very safe but there aren’t many reactors because they take so long to build, so most countries rely on previous gen ones which aren’t as safe (though already much safer than fossil fuels per megawatt hour and per year). I’d rather we build current gen reactors rapidly and focus on fusion. Especially since building LFTRs would not be faster than current reactors due to the obviously (by definition I guess) more exotic materials required.
Don't forget Gerry Anderson's science-fiction television series Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. That had the Spectrum Cloudbase, the skyborne headquarters of the international security organisation Spectrum. That was also an airborne nuclear powered aircraft carrier, stationed in Earth's troposphere.
When I saw this the first thing I thought was there is no physically way a plane that large could actually fly, and if it did how horrible that “cruise” would be during turbulence. Then I thought I can’t wait for Thinderf00t to shred this to pieces
I'm gonna be completely sincere. I thought you were going to roast the creator, and I was going to defend him because I truly believe he is making concept art, no real design or science. But then somehow I see TV hosts taking this seriously and I know your video needs more coverage
didn't"t know the hangar for the atomic bomber was actually built. Wonder what's left of it. too bad you didn't mentioned the fact that planes have really flown with nuclear reactors on board, but never turned on. At least in the US. The Soviets did it, they had a plane with a functional reactor and a jet engine (basically an heat exchanger) that actually worked. But it was canceled too. You know it's a bad idea when even soviets, who are well known for doing crazy things with nuclear technologies, forget about it.
@@charlesk22 It's several major shortcomings-- even the largest reactor that a plane could carry has only about 5% of the power needed to keep the plane aloft. Plus reactors are very slow to go up or down in power level which is critical for taking off or landing. One quick power-down for landing and the reactor is in a xenon or iodine well which takes 3 days to recover from. Major and unavoidable issues.
I heard that the US and Soviets did the calculations and the US said the shielding would make it impossible to pilot. The Soviets tried it without shielding and still couldn't make it work.
My parents watched this. They asked why I was laughing at it. I pointed out the first thing I could think of: it’s a stupid ass idea to power this thing with a nuclear reactor, and it’s even stupider to think that it can be powered by a fusion reactor. The most promising fusion reactors are the size of a large warehouse, and don’t even make any power! Not to mention the reactor is probably about as heavy as the guess he made on the weight of the plane. Do some simple, basic research, people!
The problem is your average if they think about it at all is a nuclear reactor is just a big box with uranium in it and you plug your electricity cables into it.
I appreciated the clip driving through Idaho. I’m from Utah but live basically on the border of Idaho. I’ve drove through Idaho a lot to go to the St. Anthony sand dunes, get to a lot of good trails, and also to visit family. Despite looking like nothing is there, there is a lot of good dirt biking trails, same with southern Utah. Anyways, You described the process of driving through 90% of Idaho quite accurately. Also sometimes those dirt farms have potatoes 👍
The 'its all AI controled' is the most laughable part of this. So someone could just hack the system(IT security would be one of the first corners cut on a project like this) or even a glitch could occur and cognates, now the AI thinks up is down and you have a meat glass and metal filled nuclear bomb heading for the ground.
You can't hack something that's not connected to the internet. Might as well try to hack a banana. How on Earth do you look at this monstrosity and think "What if someone hacks it?" and not "Why does it have a Centerparks on it?"
@@ashscott6068 there would likely be some sort of data connection between it and the ground (otherwise there would be a high chance of a mid air collision), and if the place where that data connection goes to is not completely isolated from the outside, then that is a potential entry point for hacking
I don't think hacking is the biggest issue here, the biggest issue is probably going to be reliability. The processors on modern aircraft are actually not that powerful but they are extremely rugged and reliable. Even those sometimes have weird glitches or problems which caused near-accidents. Now, if you needed a more powerful processor, you'd need a more compact one (e.g. smaller process node) which are generally more prone to error. So I think reliability would be a major issue.
All they have to do is... Master nuclear fusion, make a working reactor or lots of them, then make a flying fortress capable of carrying them and flying, as well as make a runway capable of holding it whilst breaking physics. Finally they just need to make an A.I capable of flying it... I mean come on, it's really not that hard. Musk would have it done by Christmas. 😉
@@tomthestone1470 for a pilotless plane that weighs more than a skyscraper whilst holding nuclear reactors? No, I don’t think a standard auto pilot covers that…
I highly doubt this thing would ever get off the ground. Creating a model and render of something is cool, but to me the aerodynamics look pretty incapable of creating enough lift.
Completely agree, especially since just looking at the "wings" you can tell that the wings are a joke to physics. Span aside the airflow over them would be so disturbed by the engines and turbulence from the second wing that you literally could not generate any less lift than this thing could. Not to mention that even if it all worked on magic it would need to fly so fast that it would probably just burn up from friction.
Off the ground? I highly doubt the first rivet would meet the first panel. Because it's a money sink scam. Like everything else that people tag the word 'futurist' to.
I see the big problem being volume is cubed, while surface area is squared, and length is linear. Doubling the length and width of the wingspan quadruples the wing area, but it increases the volume and mass of the plane by 8 times. That leads to material and structural problems, but it should lead to aerodynamic problems too. Lift is ultimately a function of Newtons Third Law of Motion, Bernoulli's Principle doesnt actually address lift, only airflow. All airplanes propel air downwards with a force equal to the mass of the plane, in order to fly. So this massive airplane, which has inadaquate wing area due to volume/mass being the square of surface area, would have to displace air downwards equal to its mass. The only way to do that would be to increase the speed, since i dont believe that the airfoil increasing in height would adaquately increase the effectiveness of the airfoil. Lift has more to do with angle of attack, and you cant go beyond a stall AoA.
The majority of the lift is caused by pressure differences sucking air downwards. Still technically Newton's, but because Bernoulli caused the deflection of air to begin with
@@nade5557 Bernoulli's principle really only describes the airflow and flow attachment, and it gets false ideas into people's heads. The bottom of an airfoil doesnt do anything, the rear portion of the top of the airfoil pulls air downwards because the flow stays attached to the surface. The air behind the wing has a downwards inertia equal to the lift imparted on the wing. And then, practically the entirety of the lift on any airplane comes from angle of attack, and not an airfoil. With a positive AoA, the bottom of the wing deflects air downwards, and the top of the wing redirects air downwards due to flow attachment. The point of it all, was to say that this enormous airplane would need to propel a mass of air downwards with force equal to the plane's mass. The wing area would quickly become insufficient as the volume of the plane grew, as the lift of the wings would scale with wingspan more than height or length of the airfoil, but even then not at a cubed rate. Look at how big the wings are on the Spruce Goose.
@@SpecialEDy I thought the aerodynamic centre is 1/4 the chord length from the leading edge so how is the rear top section of the airfoil responsible for pulling air down. I know viscosity but surely the low pressure from bernoulli causes a net downwards movement of air
Just imagine what this thing must weight, alone the pools would already make it extremely heavy, then there are the restaurants the fitness studio and all the other stuff too. It also needs working sewage system and everything around it and the Plane itself would need massive crews for maintenance and repairs. Alone all this would cut down the amount of people that can enter it. You would also need a police and emergency station that are on a 24h standby and even more you would need a massive amount of food and a possible waste storage that doesn't disturb the customers and probably even more than that. From those "5000" would probably be 90-95% working while the rest can walk around, if they didn't include all the people working
@@MrRobinhalligan put one shop to many on the right side? And now we need a nother shop of the same weight on the other side as well. Would be total horror in planning
@@MrRobinhalligan And that 5000 people roaming around would always wiggle that balance as they roam from their rooms to the pools, then to the restaurant... and with that the crew needed to move too and the logistics to move things around (from the fridges to the kitchen then to the restaurants and... then back to the rooms (in the stomachs of the people) - oh well :)
"It would remain in the air for years" Umm, okay, then how are people expected to get on and off the thing? Or do you buy your ticket and then you're stuck on this flying hotel for the next 3 years, like it or not?
You get to skydive over china and land in north Korea. Or. Just use the elevator. But I think if something like this ever existed they would surely have air taxis provided by space x. They would look like a cyber truck limo with wings
If you take a look at 24:18 during the outro I think you'll find your answer. Basically, they're taking the air-to-air refueling approach, only stupider.
As someone who works with radiation, I take a small offense to the simplification of taking mass to be the same as shielding... But I do like your shortcut! So, just some more information: What shields you from photon radiation is the interactions between photons from your source and electrons from the atoms in your shielding. The more electrons the better, indeed. But if you can densely pack these electrons, thats even better. The radius of an atom thus matters, and the heavier an element is (more protons = more weight & more electrons), the better. So looking at the periodic table... what element is the most to the right and on the lowest rung, solid at room temperature, readily available, cheap and safe? You end up with lead, Pb, every time. Why then use concrete at all? Well, having to put lead in everything isnt always great. Think of the support a heavy leaded door needs. If you have the options to build thicker walls and poor them of concrete... they offer the same protection and add to the structure, rather than being a load on the structure. Dont forget, if there is a office above the source, your ceiling needs to be just as thick as the walls...
The rule of thumb I learned for radiation protection was 1 inch of steel, one foot of concrete, or one yard of wood or dirt. That's why fallout shelters are always either buried 3 feet down, or made from either a foot of concrete or an inch of steel, and the doors are always an inch of steel.
@@FullFledged2010 How about unobtanium? Apparently a layer only a few mil thick is all that’s required to shield the reactor. Elon Musk makes the stuff in the same factory as hyperloop. /s 😆😆😆
The Thunderbirds references made me nostalgic. Gonna start watching em now. Also, is it me, or there is something about 60s, 70s and 80s that makes you feel comfortable and warm inside 😀 The footage, the voices, the speech, everything seems so nice and cool.
I gotta agree, I think it's because back then there were serious limitations in technology that meant that they had to get creative when it came to making movies. They didn't have 4k digital recording and CGI with ultra-highdef volumetric lighting, they had to make do with film and practical effects, which makes the effect even more impressive than what can be accomplished by modern cinema technology. nowadays people take CGI and high definition imaging for granted and so many movies are just meaningless spectacle instead of having to rely on actual engaging stories, characters, settings, and a hearty helping of out of the box thinking when it comes to practical effects that characterize those old movies.
Something tells me you have barely scratched the surface of the engineering nightmares that building this thing would bring. Just a few that come to my mind: the speed needed to create enough lift to keep this monstrosity in the air. Building a flying structure with enough strength to support the weight of the power plants. Getting rid of the heat produced by the plants. The deafening roar created when dissipating gigawatts of energy over a small area. Keeping the thing supplied with food, water, basically anthing, while it is in the air. Getting people on and off while it is in the air. Etc etc. - we haven't even touched on any of this, and you have already killed the concept stone dead. So... yeah, probably not.
I remember most of the journalism majors in my university weren’t in frequent attendance to their university sponsored basic science courses, but they were often spotted at commercial alchemy establishments mixing, drinking and snorting their way towards a brighter future.
Most media people don't have a clue about tech, which is why we get this shit from them. Unfortunately, Joe Public thinks they are an authority. That's also how Elon Musk gets away with his bullshit - the media presenting him as a "genius".
The entire nuclear powered plane concept was dropped by the US back in the post WW2 era…it proved to heavy …too dangerous to passengers ( radiation exposure) and civilians when it crashes 😯
Also the service crew as the shielding was only for the cockpit, because of the weight. So they would need special shielded aircraft shelters and service the bomber in heavy radiation suits.
its from a reddit CG joke, and someone went all in and made up a story about it and "news"=talk shows ate it up. Max-headroom and Not-for-broadcast can be proud of fooling the idiots like that.
Can we even fly a plane with nuclear power really? I thought the plant works just like a coal powerplant heats water to steam that turns turbines. Where in the air would you get all that water?
"powered by nuclear *fusion"* Ah. Always great when some megaproject that's made it all the way to the CGI rendering stage is dependent on technologies that we simply do not have and will not have commercially viable for decades or longer.
11:11 These chocks just got a place in my heart. There is no way this thing could take off alone through these. Clearly however made this CGI had never seen an plane on the ground before. Btw.: Good thing Elon didn't discover these good old aircooled nuclear reactors yet.
I like how they could not figure out how to hide the wheels in the plane. especially considering that it is a cgi concept. Must have been to difficullt to delete the geometry.
I have been wondering all along if this were a Sci-Fi fantasy--and there is nothing wrong with giant, nuclear-powered, flying hotels in a fictional Sci-Fi/Fantasy story--or if it were a deliberate hoax meant to troll the Internet.
It's the same with New Age and other fantasy stuff. Great in well-written stories, especially in movies where the special effects let the viewer experience psychic and magical powers, but in reality you'd better get your head checked if you believe in the Force or in receiving special messages from aliens in other dimensions.
Basically, it's a simple test to see who belongs to the 83% imbeciles (and the media) who can't intuitively tell total BS from a feasible concept, and the rest of us.
It was originally posted on r/worldbuilding, a community for writers, game designers, artists, etc to discuss and share their fictional worlds, so yes, it's sci fi. Turns out some people are just very, very stupid.
Having trained at the Nautilus prototype in 1980 which is at or very close to the site you visited. I can assure you that the engine you saw sitting near ERB-1 was in fact used to propel some sort of test rig on a runway. That site and runway was radioactive and off-limits for years. They must have hauled the radioactive material to another location. That site is also near the location of the fatal SL-1 nuclear reactor. There is a lot of history at that location. I saw that Sky-Hotel video pop up on my TH-cam feed and immediately dismissed it. You went with the power source as your argument. I would have liked to see you examine the lift needed for a plane carrying a reactor (fusion or fission), shielding , the guests, and swimming pools of water. I'm fairly certain wings to support such weight in a usable form factor would be impossible to build using materials currently know to man.
I was skeptical of it at first, but once they said there wouldn't be any pilots I was relieved and convinced of its viability. Not sure why there's so many doubters still.
🤣. Good one! Actually made me chuckle. At least, I hope you are joking. With that being the case minimally it would never be operable in the US as the FAA already has rules against such a thing.
The Soviets also had a Nuclear Powered Bomber project. Soviets ran into the same problem as the US the pilots were getting exposed to too much radiation. Soviets biggest concern was this would make their Pilots sterile and not be able to have children. The novel Soviets fix to this was we'll just use Old Pilots that are past breeding age. Thank god both programs were eventually cancelled.
Nuclear bomber pilots were issued with eye patches so that when they were blinded by the first nuclear bomb going off they could still see out of one eye to drop the second one. just having the crews irradiated by the powerplant would not have stopped them
Also why seamen (think pirates in movies) wore eye patches. One eye kept for night vision when they had to go below deck for something. I believe they tried this on mythbusters and it works.
When I saw a friend share this, I was seriously skeptical. I knew nuclear-powered aircraft isn't gonna be a thing because of how heavy the shielding is.
Eh it was done as a test in the 50s the NB-36 and it did actually fly it’s not unreasonable for an aircraft to be nuclear powered what’s unreasonable is the size of the thing and the wingspan looks far to small to keep the aircraft aloft
@@jameson1239 that version of the B36 peacemaker was only carrying operational nuclear reactor, but the reactor was not providing propulsion...it was decided that besides the huge problems related to the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear reactor crashing into the ground from a great height, the problem of how to convert the nuclear energy into propulsion (in a way that didn't spew radioactive contamination out the back end) was deemed to be a problem to big to solve
Yes! SuperBus! Been a long time since I've seen that. I'd guess you have a very interesting video collection, that I've probably seen a fair amount of.
When I saw the headline in the news, I immediately thought "Well, that's not gonna work. Can't wait to see the Busted video on it." Thanks for being so consistent
The NB-36H was a very real 'nuclear powered' aircraft that flew almost 50 test flightrs, it was extremely impractical because the shielding needed to make it safe for the crew(and only the crew on the plane) made it extremely heavy, the shielding was so heavy, that only the crew area was shielded, meaning ground crew were in danger, because of this the reactor was designed to be lowered out of the bomb bay into an underground vault while not flying. The NB36H was equipped with a 1 megawatt reactor that weighed 36 thousand pounds(10% of the weight). The thing is, 1 megawatt is under 1400HP. This plane needed a total of 4 turbojet engines producing 20 thousand punds of thrust, and 6 radial engines producing 22 thousand horsepower to fly, the reactor was only there for test purposes. Yes with more modern reactors and shielding the reactor could come down in weight, output more power, and the shielding would weigh a little less, but the idea of an airborne nuclear powered aircraft, that had human crew was quickly ruled to be inpractical, much like the WS125, which thankfully would have used a closed loop system. They did however prove that an unshielded nuclear powered cruise missile would work, the problem was that the only way to get enough thrust, was to have atmospheric area pass through the reactor and expand in much the same way a scramjet works. However, this would lead to dangerous levels of fallout, basically making this a flying dirty bomb until it hit its target, polluting the entire flight path with radioactive isotopes
As an addendum to this, I heard somewhere (can't remember where) that an idea was tossed around once to have a nuclear powered aircraft with little to no shielding, but crewed by service members that were nearing retirement age. The logic being that they'd die of old age before the radiation exposure could give them cancer. Because who gives a shit about ethics, right?
@@IBeforeAExceptAfterK I think i recall something like this, but i think the logic was that they'd die normally before cancer had time to develop, i think chernobyl had something like this, i dont recall this for a nuclear aircraft.
Shielding was one of the first things I thought about when I saw that. BTW, finding how much shielding you need is not that easy, because googling "how big is a nuclear reactor in submarine" gives you basically nothing useful, but after some time I found something about the size, then I just had to find out how much lead would be needed to shield it. Then I applied those numbers to some airbus (I think it was A380, the big one, but it is about a year ago. Surprisingly it is about same size as a nuclear submarine) and just the weight of the shielding (not the reactor itself) was about 50%, maybe 60% over how much that plane can carry. Sure, you would probably save some weight in fuel, but it was still way over the limit. Shielding is huge problem, I'm surprised Thunderf00t didn't mention how much it would weight. (I wonder if my calculations were at least close).
Adding to your axle weight calculations for a second, don't forget that the initial take-off rotation of the aircraft is basically just the horizontal stabiliser pushing the tail down hard enough to lift the nose. The fulcrum are those 6 axles. It's a safe assumption that the weight on those wheels doubles momentarily as the nose is lifted.
The airflow over the wings as the plane accelerates down the runway generates lift. By the plane reaches its rotation speed, the wing is already flying. As the nose of the plane rises, it increases the angle of attack of the wing (the angle at which the chord of the wing is relative to the oncoming air), increasing the force of lift such that it exceeds the plane's weight, so that the plane lifts off.
@@grantwhite1428 Build your best and most beautiful balsa wood airplane. Now fasten it elegantly to a very very large cinder block. Please let me know the results of your test flights. Rather than ferrying African or Indian elephants across a large flat River we could just have a dragonfly pick them up and fly them across.
@orbiting teapot When you say "theory", you mean like the theory of gravity or the chemtrails conspiratard "theory"? Internet insults aside, let's talk wings. What you've (probably) been told by the media, "science educators" and "science communicators" is a lie. Well, not a lie exactly, more of a gross oversimplification to the point of being completely useless as a model of reality (see Einstein quote about simplicity). May as well be a lie though. In the grand scheme of things, wings generate lift by means of momentum change. That is, any momentum they impart on the surrounding air is by definition imparted back on them (Newton's 2nd and 3rd). In the case of lift, that's momentum in the vertical direction, which is to say - wings push air down. Air has inertia (Newton's 1st), so it pushes the plane up (Newton's 3rd). By far the most effective way to do that is to angle the wing so its chord line isn't parallel to the free stream flow around it. The chord line, by the way, is drawn between the forward-most point of the wing (leading edge) and aft-most point (trailing edge), where it usually comes to a cusp. Wanna pull the plane up more? Angle it further up. Simple as that. ...
@orbiting teapot ... The angle between the chord line and free stream is called the angle of attack. This is different from the aircraft's (and wing's) overall angle of incidence, as when climbing or descending the free stream is also at an angle to the horizon. All we care about for now is the angle of attack. When the leading edge is pointed up and the trailing edge - down, that's a positive angle of attack. The relationship between lift and angle of attack is linear within the flight envelope. That is, assuming a symmetrical profile (we'll talk about that later), a wing will produce twice as much lift at 4° as it will at 2°. It's helpful to visualise this as a straight line of lift vs angle of attack which, for the moment, crosses (0,0). This is how pilots directly control how much lift a wing is producing at any one time. The other way to produce lift is by making the wing's profile (called aerofoil) asymmetric. This asymmetry is called camber. On the aerofoil diagram, the camber line (actually it's usually a curve) is drawn so it always represents the mid-point between top and bottom surface (remember, the chord line is from front to back only, straight line). This usually ends up looking like a little hump going over the top of the chord line. On symmetrical aerofoils (such as those used for the tail stabilisers and control surfaces), the chord is also the camber line. ...
@orbiting teapot ... Camber has several effects. First and foremost, per what you've heard from the media/etc I slandered above, camber creates asymmetric flow which results in some lift at 0° angle of attack. This moves the whole lift curve up a bit (on the straight line plot I mentioned earlier), but has no effect on its slope. That is to say, the rate at which lift increases with angle stays the same. This is useful at cruise speeds, but too little to affect the rest of the flight. Secondly, camber will tend to alter the stall characteristics of the wing a little bit. We can discuss stall if you want, but for now let's just call it the wing's angle of attack limit, beyond which it produces very little lift and lots of drag (I lied, the lift curve isn't really straight, at a certain point it tapers off and drops to 0). Pilots are acutely aware of stall and train how to manage it. Adding a bit of camber stacks the deck in their favour by (sometimes) extending the maximum safe angle of attack, and increasing the lift available at said angle. Thirdly, camber is used (on _some_ aircraft, like the B787) to address the problem created by parts of the wing going supersonic as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound. This is called transonic flight and it creates small shockwaves on parts of the airframe. These shockwaves can stall the section of wing behind them if they're big enough and on older aircraft they can get pretty big. These specially cambered aerofoils make the shockwaves smaller (to reduce the likelihood of shock stall) and push them further back (to reduce the effect of shock stall, if it happens). Older aircraft are known to have lost effectiveness of control surfaces because of this when going too fast, some Russian WW1 or WW2 (can't remember exactly) planes have crashed because they sped up too much and couldn't pull out of a dive. These new-ish aerofoils are pretty awesome in comparison! ...
Also the nuclear plane idea was basically what was funding the molten salt reactor concept, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten any funding for the research. They knew the plane idea was stupid, but at least they got funding for something that wasn't.
Nice! You got me with those circles on the ground in Idaho. I also like the meme of facepalming Picard wo essentially flies a nuclear powered cruiseship 😆.
I don't know if you missed a point, or if I just don't know enough about nuclear power (both possible): Don't nuclear reactors generate electricity, by turning water into steam, that then drives turbines that generate electricity usinged giant dynamos? And to do that constantly, you have to turn the steam back to water, to repeat the process. In a nuclear power plant this is done, by large cooling towers or often by taking water out of rivers around, to cool down stuff. On a nuclear aircraft carrier or submarine, I guess there is enough water around to do the necessary cooling. But how would a nuclear powered plane do the necessary cooling? Of course there is a lower temperature up there, but also way thinner air, so is it even possible to cool a reactor down in the air?
They would use thorium-powered solar roadways to capture water from the air. This craft will also be capable of flying high enough to capture vacuum from space to send down to recharge the Hyperloop, reducing the number of vacuum pumps needed. It is all part of a genius plan.
You are correct about how nuclear power stations work. The cooling towers (or river/sea) is not to cool the reactor but to condense the exhaust steam from the turbines, which makes them much more efficient. On a plane you would need to condense the exhaust steam also to preserve water, and you would need to use air cooling for this. Most old railway steam locos did not bother to condense the exhaust steam - they just carried and consumed lots of water, exhausting it into the air.
Check out Plainly Difficult's video on the HTRE. They were air cooled systems that heated incoming air and blasted it out of the back. The GE design is in Thunderfoot's own video here.
0:18 I finally made it to a Thunderfoot video.....I can die a happy man. My favourite bits were the swimming pool on board an aircraft, and the undercarriage being down at 35000 feet.
I remember when the video dropped on reddit. I thought it was fun and creative. I didn't think anybody would be dumb enough to actually take it at face value and think that it could exist in reality. But here we are.
Even if we were in sci-fi land and we had no issues with the power source. How fast should that thing go in order to remain airborne and how do you resupply / remove waste from that deathtrap while being in the air for months?
Waste disposal is easy enough: Just dump it out a hole in the bottom. The peons already get plenty of shit from their capitalist overlords, might as well make it literal.
Hey Thonderfoot you got something completely wrong in your video!! They want to power it with nuclear fusion reactors not classic fission. So it is alot more efficient. Havent you learned from Iron man how small fusion reacrors are just incredibly powerfull and safe?
That image of Picard is one of my favorites nowadays. The need to be "first" joined with the fact that there is not downside to being wrong, means that any crap is good to present to the public.
![โรงเรียนห้ามรัก โดนจับได้ตาย...!! [เอิร์นไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4u02Sbr556Q/mqdefault.jpg)
This originated on the /r/worldbuilding subreddit. Someone had created it as a fun scifi CGI project. The keyword being fiction. It is not and never was meant to be any sort of real proposal for a real product, for a lot of obvious reasons. It is absolutely mind-boggling to see supposedly serious news channels take it up as some sort of serious proposal.
they are obviously not news channels, and love to mislabel themselfes as "news"
To understand/feel what the channel let happen to itself to degrade from "imformative news" to "political commercial talk show", play the game "not for broadcast".
Idiocracy. When you have no self awareness or ability to asses something you know absolutely nothing about this is what we get parroted around the world. There are some of us that know our limitations and understand that we don't know everything so we keep our mouths shut and educate ourselves. The non technical types just spew BS & nonsense for clicks.
Just by looking at the pic it's kind of obvious this is just a fun CGI thing. So yeah Busted I guess.
I mean it's just Fox, not serious news at all
Un-real. I just can't comprehend how people can trip over themselves for consumable crap like this, but when we were digging tunnels in Texas to build the SSC, people griped about it being too expensive... Imagine what we could have learned.
So I'm a private pilot, currently studying to be an airline pilot. It brings me immense pain to see people treating this like it's a serious proposal.
Thank you for making this.
There are not many people that know enough about physics to debunk this. I'm not very stupid and I didn't think "impossible" when I saw the picture. But when I heard the information about the flying time and the things inside as well as the numbers of passengers, that was my moment of "won't do". Currently we use planes for transportation of people and freight.
The only time in history when air traffic was used like a cruise ship, was about 100 years ago with those "Zeppelins". And even that was not retried with modern technology.
You just hate freedom and innovation!!! Go away Illumaniti !!!!
who cares who you are?
Just because the model isn't perfect doesn't mean it can't be achieved. It means they need to adjust the wrong span and weight distribution.
The concept isn't flawed, it just needs to be designed properly. Remember, this is the same guy claiming Space X is a failure in spite of having better tech than NASA on a much smaller budget.
I'm a commercial pilot, if you are older than 25. Try truck driving.
If there's one thing I learned from watching Thunderf00t, it's if you're pretty good at rendering 3d animation on a computer, you can run a pretty lucrative scam.
Nailed it
It makes me think I picked the wrong career. Why did I go into the field of automation and robotics when I could've learned to draw some cartoons and convinced people to give me millions of dollars?
@@chitlitlah You know your run is over once thunderfoot gets to your 3d video 🤣
@@sicfxmusic
"You know your run is over . . . "
If only that were true.
People, that is to say the *_majority_* of people, see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe.
If someone is promising them unicorns, they'll be far too excited about the prospect to ever consider paying attention to some 'luddite' scientist trying to remind them that there is no such thing as a unicorn.
All the sense, all the reason, all the information and evidence in the world won't be able to convince them to give up the fantasy.
Just like all the others, this scam will keep on running, steadily pulling in money from idiot investors and probably a few drug cartels looking for ways to launder their cash. They'll keep it going right up to the point at which they would be expected to start unveiling prototypes, when they'll fold things up and disappear.
Give them a year or two to burn through the money, and they'll pop up again with a similarly ludicrous idea for some 'new mode of transport.'
Rinse, and repeat.
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
The worst bit about this… it’s not even a good CGI. I mean seriously. They took like 40 seconds and built the most clickbait image and then sold it
I just love how the animation never depicts the wheels being retracted.
RIGHT the landing gear are open at cruising altitude lol, it looks so silly
Naaaah it's fine totally no damage to landing gear maybe
Luckily this was just CGI and had no Intentions of being even constructed
So yay, no chernobyl 2
The Fallout also depends on how the core is made
If its fission, it would be big boom
If its fusion tho, it would just fizzle out and stall once the containment systems fail, and most of the damage would occur to the reactor, with some possibly damaging the outer wall, but that damage would be minor. This would be bad for the plane as it would have no power, but at least the fallout was nearly nothing
Tho we are still trying to figure out fusion and how to actually make fusion feasible, as like yk, 100 million degrees and strong electromagnetic containment=lots of energy consumed in the process of simply sustaining fusion
The creator mentioned that the wheels weren't rigged and didn't had a lot of time.
So...this wasn't real. It was from some Reddit where they do creative conceptual art. Then someone 3D modeled it and made a commercial out of it. The fact that these many people believe it is fantastic!
I honestly didn't expect to see a debunking video of this. I thought most reasonable people knew this wasn't real.
So the news was reporting on some kid's drawwing
Indeed. This was a post on r/worldbuilding. The guy who made it was very surprised that news outlets were running with it as if it's a real concept.
Which really shows just how eager news outlets are to get on board with these cgi trailers..
@@Illendor this isn't really new that so called news reports on this crap
Just the picture in thumbnail made it obvious. Whats next? Debunk aircrafts from animated movies?
@@patx_game4318 Thunderf00t literally said that in this own video, see the wal-e refferances and 3:15
At first I couldn't believe you'd have to bust this, but when I saw how much airtime the media gave it, I understand why you did it.
I started typing "does this need busting?" Then deleted it when they showed fox news.
@@moshunit96 To be fair, it seems like this is one of those things that's just getting attention to distract us from those bleak stock market numbers that sometimes show up on the screen while he's rambling about this non-starter idea
These hack media outlets need to find content to fill 24 hours 7 days a week. They're going to report on absolutely every stupid thing that shows up on the internet.
I just saw it on CNN as well lol.
@@kylefer CNN is envious of fox. They need the views!
I was a Machinist Mate on a Nimitz, and worked with the reactors. Thinking about getting 2k of those things to fly is one of the funniest things I've heard in ages. Good luck.
I like the way inventing world-changing fusion power is just a happy side effect of building the Sky Hotel.
Nope, already busted and debunked.
I son't see many countries allowing a plane powered by fission reactor fly in their air space. There are a couple prototype fusion reactors currently in operation but they still have a way to go and the prototype fusion reactors are giant.
I especially love how the CGI of the "plane" at 40k feet still has it's landing gear down.
That's a demonstration of potency. I says " look at me, I'm powerful enough to fly with my wheels hanging out"
Glad someone else noticed!
So from what I understand, this was someone dicking around on the internet having fun learning a new software and building some sci-fi machine with that. It wasn't meant as a serious concept but for some reason some crazzyass journos reported on it as if it were a legit idea.
They left no stone unturned when it came to increasing drag
Landing gear down
Elevators outside
Big dome
@@pitsahat2 This seems legit because the model doesn't even try to be plausible, it really looks like someone learning or messing around with a silly design.
I can't imagine what the drag coefficient on such a monstrosity would be, its proportions are all wrong for any sort of efficient flight, let alone being capable of making an emergency landing. You can forget landing this thing anywhere near where port is with any reliability, it has got so much mass that its stopping distance is probably going to be a royal pain to reliably use, so a fair portion of its landing period is going to be it propelling itself through the water, probably at a measly 6-7 miles per hour?
And then you have the problem of if we have the materials to actually make a structure that big rigid enough to not collapse under its own weight when it lands; material science works on cross sections, so what are the odds that the first time this behemoth lands its wings just shear off and fall to the sides?
The mental gymnastics of what all you need to have ignored to think this a 'reasonable' proposal is purely astounding.
I think at least one of the ideas was to have planes taxi people up to it when it is going over your continent. Or that was the old idea from the 70s
@@glenecollins unless they want to build it already flying, this thing is gonna need to take off first and landed to be maintained.
Ignored? No, you can't ignore something you can't even hope to understand. You can thank the US education system for pumping out people that don't think, or care to do so. Thinking people like us don't understand idiots.
Just goes to show you, if you can CGI it, people will believe it.
As someone who was around when the internet was new, I always thought that with the advent of more information at your fingertips people would become more discerning with the information they receive. How wrong I was.
Doesn't need to worry about drag if it never flies.
The NB-36H actually flew with an operating reactor for a total of 89 hours between 1955 and 1957. However, the reactor did not power the aircraft. This aircraft was used only to experiment with shielding for the crew.
The one megaton reactor was also stored underground between test flights.
I assume you meant "one megawatt" rather than "one megaton".
@@edwardmoffett1704 Depends on its operating mode 💥
@@technoman9000 Great joke:))
But thermal reactor performance and the TNT explosion equivalent are not values you can interchange 1:1.
Lets just acknowledge that Derryn is a god in creating confusion, hehehe. Did he mean 1000 tons weight, explosion or was it a typo/misconception/lack of knowledge. Really the work of an -troll- expert! (or not??? **g** )
literally sounds like using a submarine to survey land attached to a major continent.
As an aeronautical engineer, the aerodynamics are also extremely dubious... but... hey, this was created as a fun piece of entertainment, the visual quality is excellent and I guess that the creators really enjoyed making it... the fact that some idiots believed it all will have made their day!
I say bravo to them... Thunderbirds are go once again!
Man, I lived and breathed thunderbirds when I was a kid. I had one of the thunderbird 2 as a kid in the 60's and too bad I played with it. Lost the red rockets off the back and the little yellow feet broke almost immediately. It would be worth a fortune now :-(
I also love how "the ignorant" blame government for stifling creativity. It isn't the government, it's physics. Not to mention simple common sense. (Like AOC's railway to Hawaii). The amount of energy and materials that would go into such a vehicle would cost trillions for nothing more than "fun in the sky".
I got raked over the coals for "killing her dreams" when my niece had a dream of winning American Idol. I said to her "that's all well and good, but can you sing like Whitney Houston"? No. "well, she might not win it if she entered not because of her voice, but because of her stage presence" Even with her voice she might not win. Maybe instead you should have a dream of "feeding your freaking kids and getting an education and then earning your way instead of a next to impossible fantasy"?
I didn't even watch one video on this POS because one look at it and anyone with half a brain would think "that's not gonna work". It's no different than designing a 1000 story office building that stands on a single pillar 24" in diameter.
I was thinking their Aero-engineer....
It requires with a modest rocket... 17 tonnes of fuel for 2 tonnes of additional (cargo weight) to reach escape velocity and get o 5 km/s of orbit...
With that in mind... we coudl build a orbiting city in space. by building a massive station that can maintain its orbit....
If one watned to build a city.. what would its weight be? what would the materials be.. and how should it? What do you think if its a city.. of say 1000 people.. what the required energy needed and fuel to make it... hmmm ,but ti is doable.
@@artemirrlazaris7406 and how much energy and pollution would be produced to get all that material into orbit? and don't forget about all the CO2 those people would produce and all the oxygen they'd require. Not to mention all the food they'd need to consume and all the waste that would need to be dealt with.
Each person would require about 1 lbs of food per meal or 3000 lbs x 3 meals per day = 9000 lbs per day approx that's 270,000 lbs per month. even if you 1/4 that by using compacting tech that's still 80,000 lbs per month.
The only way it would be feasible is if you used protein resequencers like they do on star trek. Know what that does? turns poo into food.
Now let's talk about water. Each person is supposed to consume 8 8oz glasses of water per day. That's 8 thousand x 8 oz or 65,000 oz per day of liquid water. That's 507 gallons, PER DAY.
@@muskokamike127 Well... I don't eat.. 3 lbs a day, but I definitely drink maybe a pound of water a day, I think those weight averages are quite high... yeah its good to think about. Not sure on the space station... Various human groups have different eating cycles and still maintain a healthy system, hmm. I think the numbers are quite high, I don't drink that much water perday ever... I wonder what these averages are based on... There are people that consume very little.
Water is pretty easy to clean and resource, and the waste materials are important chemicals that can be utilized for cleaning and other various reactions. The body only demands what it needs thus the environment humidity and temp effect the desired water. Hmm.
Japan had that white good that takes anything and make it edible food. Mostly be supplements with some sort of food base.... The weight doesn't concern me... the payloads deliver 2 tonnes a day of building materail. The intersting thing is, the engineering and design has ot change from the lack of gravity, which benfits for being able to have large skeletal chells in space, Big volumes... Whihc is lighter ... various ways ot make compartments and self sealign systems.
1000 people city.... THe point I guess would have a a space crew on rotation between visiters... 5-15 that run operations... Using science one can cook in various ways for food prep since one side ofhte sun directly hitting is about 250 celsius... and the other side is cold.... The weight isn't much since its weightless its the getting it up there are creating a cyclic system... in re-engineering materials... What is interesting about space and orbit, is the type of metal work or 3d printing you could do with other people.
Yesterday, I had about 32 ounzes of water hot day, and 2.4 pounds of food. I call that a pretty big eats' day, lol. My weight was 224... but I was running and burning ... 500 cals per run over 5 days... missed one day... 2000 cal workout plus working and plus random walks... Took me down ot 216... hmm.. Then there is fasting if its a commerical or short term stay.
The thing is once you invest in building the system it would be self perpetual... of course you don't need super large engines, but yo uwould haveto have quite a few, to ensure perpetuity during maintenance of energy systems.
BAttery power seems ot be the best wa,y but cheaper method is a rocket to aid and assist if it becomes into orbital decay. the largest problem I guess is it falling back to earth and crushing people/ cities etc.
If yo umade a 5 year project... sent up a rocket the first year with 2 tonnes of supplies for the engine nad base... You have about 150 tonnes of material the first year to work with that would be in geo syn orbit... being put together.... then once hte base foundation is layed.... could lauch... rockets every 1-2 days from various nations... 680 tonnes of whatever material.. over 4 years... should be able to build the structure over five years... Those invovled get ot be space trades.. the first ever of their kind... With a modular design, most can be pre made earth nad hten jsut connected in space. so it is a possiblity... the weight nad expense is really nothing, since its just an action to do...
Looking through the cities of the earth, some cities have fantastic waste processing etc... reduce recycle, reuse... out ofhte estimated waste of 270 lbs of waste perday... which I do think is a bit high, most could be converted into something else... it slike using plants for mineral or mining, verse diging directly into hte crush, various forms of use one can utlize in a system...
If I recorded how much I consume in a month... I htink I fall way below those numbers... so the best trade or age group might be female 40-60 for the work, since they consume quite a bit less... Young males and females can eat quite a bit, but culture wise some females eat like waifes... I guess... like nothing and yet are healthy and maintain their steady decay delcine of hteir systems.
SO it is possible, and the modular design in the mid building phase could be built so it can also be removed to adapt ot thigns we learn from oeprating a city in space, pretty sure processsing and piping and many other factors would have to change....
After 5 years... can about 4000 tonnes/ 4,000,000 lbs of material be enough for said such a system.
The cost is neglible, since it just requires intelligence and the production of works. Meaning the men that owuld be employed value the task/ work over money to the relation of that work, not caught up in the idiot house... just a very different male/ female groups... bcause their mind isn't whiny based on money but logically defined in a reality of systems nad possiblities...
The cost... in how the liars would see it as... 450 trillion dollars.. but in reality is jsuta group of people colelctivating their works for a goal.. costs nothing as the base human currency is communication, not paper or gold. its why we kill. lol and protect values and not the monetary value sense... to do that would pervert ones talos and ruin ones mind...
@@artemirrlazaris7406 that is pre-cooked weight of the food. For eg: an 4 oz hamburger after all the fixin's is probably closer to 8 oz, AFTER cooking....then you add in fries and you're pushing 1 lbs. Then if you have a balanced dinner, probably more than a pound. I buy chicken breasts in packs of 3 that weigh 1 kg which is 2.2 lbs for 3. So 1 will be 3/4 lb. Now add in any veggies and you're over a lbs.
BTW: I know people who eat 2 to 3 lbs PER MEAL. I knew one woman who ate more for lunch than I did in 2 days.
Minor note (that doesn’t change the result), when you calculated the 150MW, that’s thermal power. Actual jet engines are 20-30% efficient, so the shaft power of a typical jet (spread across the engines) is going to be 30-50MW. So the carrier comparison isn’t exactly right, as the 150MW on the carrier is shaft power.
So the more appropriate comparison would be to compare thermal power, so you’d _only_ need 1/3rd of all the reactors in the US.
Lol.
HA, shaft power.
Apparently, with nuclear subs, 70% of their reactor's heat is released to the surrounding water, so it would seem they're only 30% efficient as well. Presumably carriers would be the same.
In fact, the submarine is a much better comparison than the carrier, as they have 150-160 MW reactors and weigh 20K-25K tons, which is right in line with this proposed plane.
Modern large jets are nowhere near 20-30% thermal efficiency. Those are typical numbers for engines from the 50s and 60s.
Today they’re well above 40%, nudging very close to 50%. The biggest contributing factor for this advance is the increase in pressure ratios throughout the years. A late 50s early 60s jet engine would have something like a 16:1 OPR (eg JT3D). Modern large jets are now available with 60:1 (eg GE9X).
The "proposal" for the air-hotel was to use electric turbines to produce thrust and not jet engines, so maybe they could be more efficient, so the 150mw calculation for a jet airliner doesn't really have any bearing on the power requirements of this beast. Not that it makes the thing any less stupid.... But I question the methodology behind those power calculations in this video.
@@TheOtherClips I mean if it is thermal power that is the maximum energy output period so if it cant even support it with an 100% effecient engine then nothing will
Do people understand what tensile strength means. Just the engineering alone that goes into keeping a 60 story building from collapsing under its own weight is quite a marvel of engineering. This thing wouldn't be able to support it's own weight let alone take off.
What does the tensile strength have to do with it? Surely it would largely be due to compressive strength? Or even giant bending moments? Although yes holding its own weight would be a struggle to say the least.
@@ashmaxwell665 Yield under tension or compression generally occurs at the same stress level in ductile materials
Just use a carbon fiber hull. Safety regulations are overrated anyway.
@@RA-el6zjI need to know what billionaire is gonna live on this thing before I know if I'm morally okay with it crashing...
I love how they throw lots of science-related terms to convince people that aren't very informed on these kinds of topics like "Look at this nuclear powered fully electric aerodynamic supersonic carbon-neutral sky hotel with artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency NFTs that are self-sustainable through biodegradable robots that won't form a union!"
„Won’t form a union“ 😂
It's a Dogecoin-powered Hyperplane!
It's called "technobabble".. Definition : _Technical or scientific language used in fiction to convey a false impression of meaningful technical or scientific content_ . I was half expecting to see Musk behind this bollocks, he's full of it.
@@dukenukem5768 I have enough of Musk, he's the personification of technobabble. Most YT thumbnails just slap an image of his face in all tech related videos, it's unsufferable
One thing I think he got wrong is the power needed. It would be best if you used electric turbines. You don't have to worry about battery weight (because imagination). You already have a nuclear power plant just use it for electricity generation. Normal jets engines have 55% Efficiency. So instead of 90 MW instead of 150MW. not like any of this is even kinda realistic outside of space.
The circles look like farming units, where the watering system basically rotates around a central point! The are still in use today in areas where water is scares.
This is so completely ridiculous, there is literally already an enormous mobile hotel industry that runs on the dirtiest possible diesel fuel..... Cruise ships...
Nuclear powered ships are nothing new, so maybe they should start with nuclear powered cruise ships instead of something so astonishingly ridiculous, but then again you need something ridiculous to get money for a scam...
Need to work on the public first.
Otherwise they’d spend too many millions on a nuke ship that everyone is scared to go on
Diesel fuel actually burns cleaner and gets better fuel economy than regular fuel. More Indoctrination you received. All facts you can look up. Hence why Deisel is more expensive. It's higher grade.
Considering that the primary market for cruise ships are older people who grew up ir witnessed chernobyl, nuclear powered cruiseships would probably be so unjustifiably feared that they would be unprofitable
Yeah cruise ships are a literal plague on our world, check out the pollution and damages in generates... it is insane.
There was NS Savannah first and only nuclear powered cruise ship. It was very popular among the people. But after 5 years they couldn't continue passenger service. It was not profitable. The cost kf maintaining the reactor was to high. But the design worked as intended and there was no incident or radiation leaking.
Love the “Big Bus” references!!! My question is, does the nuclear cruise plane have “the flags of all nations” that they raised in order to increase drag?
You need to raise the flags in order to balance the drag from the wheels who are still out during a multiple month flight
"Raise the flags of all nations."
"..Raising flags of all nations..."
They will fly the pride flag and have drag in the bar.
@@Pentti_Hilkuri
I wonder if they have a red flag. :p
i LOVE how their computer model flies high above the clouds with all its wheels in the landing-position, unlike large military transport planes. Yes, such huge airplanes are best as water-landers without any wheels ever, because building a runway just for them is not worth it.
nuclear flying hotel planes make great craters at the pentagon or at Manhattan-Island. Not very large craters, but they smell very bad for a lot of years.
I remember the nuclear-powered-bus-desaster movie. The self-washing ability is a cute checkows gun. And the jets only at the back of course go GREAT with the hinge in the center of the bus.
This wasn't even supposed to be taken seriously it was a cgi test on r/worldbuildung
The largest airlift planes in recent history have had fixed gear or semi-fixed gear. See the Russian (later Ukranian) AAN, recently destroyed (it was in a museum I believe, but still an 80's era plane, I think)
@@dominicdelprincipe2583 it was actively flying cargo, not in a museum
@@NGCAnderopolis I see, thanks for correction
@@dominicdelprincipe2583 What are you talking about?? The AN225?? definitely had fully retractable gear.
I lost it when they said “Powered by nuclear fusion”🤣 My dad worked designing fusion reactors for UKAEA @ Harwell & Culham, since the 50’s & to date they still haven’t got a working reactor.
I hear you. This is a crazy idea.
20 years out...
@@ericgulseth74 It's always 20 years out due to a lack of funding. It's also the holy grail of energy production. It was never supposed to be easy or quick.
@@noname7271 its only the holy grail of energy production if you have enough fuel to power them (a problem for D-T fusion reactors) and their fusion energy gain factor (Q) is higher than commercial break even, otherwise it's the grail shaped beacon of Castle Anthrax of energy production.
@@noname7271 Yeah, that was kinda my point.
OMG, that's my favourite Thunderbirds episode!
You need more upvotes.
@Greeley Yeah, you can bet he's doing it for both reasons. Which is a win-win move since his channel is also top-notch quality.
Spot on and nice.
it's the second movie, Thunderbird 6
The open air elevators running in a Mach 1 airstream are quite fun as well.
Dude this could totally work, you just have to slap a couple of solar panels on the wings and stuff, oh oh and you could also build a hyperloop type of thing to slingshot it off the ground - from an underground tunnel and stuff. And you forgot to consider the fact that this hotel would have free WiFi because of starlink.
Solar freaking runways!
Coming soon: solar freaking airplanes!!!
@@myfavoriteviewer306 Hey we can build a Solar Road powered go kart track in the hotel or on the wings :)
OOOOOHHHHHHH and you could get water from the air around it!
@@herrschaftg35 Let's just cover all bases and call it Solar Freaking Fantasies.
We live in exiting times. We have CGI hyperloop, CGI solar roadways, CGI flying hotels, who would have thought that 50 years ago
My favorite part of the plane is the massive observation disc deck thing they have completely obstructing the tail making it impossible to steer in the air and the ridiculous glass dome thing on the back that destroys the aerodynamics of the plane.
Add to this the square windows in the center dome. Those things will crack instantly. There is a reason every jet window has been an oval ever since the De Havilland Comet developed stress cracks around its windows.
It’s like the people who designed the nuclear plane. Have no idea how aerodynamics or actual airplanes work. They just sort of made something airplane shaped.
I just bet that observation deck is also "designed" to rotate to offer amazing 360 degree views... and insure everyone is evenly cooked by the reactors lol.
@@nothere7198 mmmmmm irradiated. * drools like homer simpson*
I agree the whole thing is ridiculous, but I should point out that an aircraft is not steered in the air with the tail (or rudder for that matter). On the ground, yes, but not in the air, where the rudder introduces yaw, which at a very basic level changes where the aircraft is 'pointing.' It doesn't make it turn though, the aircraft will still travel on its original heading.
Those videos of aircraft landing in strong crosswinds where the nose is not pointing directly down the runway but the aircraft is travelling in line with the runway. That's yaw.
Just a side note. Those 5000 MW numbers are for the entire nuclear power station, not a single reactor. Typically one reactor seems to be between 500 and 1000 MW.
Sorry to break it to you chief, but this thing uses a functioning FUSION reactor. Because those totally already exists now
@@mattar8363 *micro fusion reactor
Wow, I can't wait for airports to rebuild their runways to 20km ones just for this single airplane.
*assuming it runs on magic and can be the displayed size, I also wish someone calculated its approximate weight and if any runway in the world can handle it without instantly cracking*
I mean, look at that thing. Its single wheel is twice the diameter of Airbus A380)
Not to worry! They can just ask Elon for some help with Electric VTOL, and we won't need runways for this magical sky hotel!
they just add wings and wheels to the airpor itself
There's also that one major issue where the mass of something as it gets bigger goes up with the cub of the dimensions, but most of the things that go into making it work - thrust, lift, load bearing capacity of it's structure, only goes up with the square of the dimensions.
There was an aircraft that flew with a nuclear reactor on board - the Convair NB-36H.
The reactor was 1MW, weighed in at 16t. There was heavy shielding around the crew section, but nowhere else. The crew section weighed 11t, from Wiki.
The reactor was not actually used to power anything in the flight tests.
Also, i believe the blurb said that it was a nuclear fusion reactor, which would be a neat achievement considering no-one has managed to get a viable fusion reactor working at this time.
The propulsion would come form electric motors driving big fans. I wonder how that would compare, in thrust/weight, to the heat/jet method that was to be used in the nuclear bomber in the 1950s.
I remember reading that the props on the B-36 would be powered by steam created by the heat from the reactors, not electric motors. Another method was to use the heat to compress the air instead of using traditional compressors in jet engines.
Internal combustion engines, like jet engines or piston engines, are just heat pumps. They induct cool air in, combust fuel to generate heat, and that heat increases the pressure of the air. The pressure increase is exchanged to a volume increase, driving the piston or exhaust turbine. Nuclear Power Plants would then be external "combustion" engines, like steam engines. Steam engines, nuclear plants, coal plants, and natural gas plants all use an external heat source to heat the air inside the engine, usually a steam turbine instead of an exhaust turbine like on a jet engine.
So, a nuclear powered jet engine would use superheated air or steam coming from the reactor to drive the exhaust turbine. The more efficient approach would be to run a steam turbine in each engine, with the output shaft connected to a giant ducted fan instead of a generator. Modern Turbofan jet engines in airliners operate more closely to the turboshaft engines in helicopters, than turbojets in fighter jets. Theres a small jet engine in the core of the engine, it has an output shaft from the exhaust turbine powering not only the compressor turbine on the jet, but also an enormous ducted bypass fan around to core of the engine. Most of the thrust from a commercial jet turbofan comes from the bypass fan, and not from the jet engine at the core. So, a nuclear engine would be best constructed by replacing the core turboshaft engine with a steam turbine, and the bypass fan being turned by the steam turbine. It'd be ridiculously energy efficient, much more so than electric motors and generators, and the bypass air would be excellent for cooling the steam turbine for increased efficiency. The problem is still shielding everything, and condensing your steam back into water.
The Soviets reportedly also flew a nuclear powered plane - actually powered by the reactor. It worked, sort of. It also irradiated the entire crew, because the only way they could get it to work was to skip on the shielding...
@@mellusk9194 Using steam turbines to drive a propeller was one way considered.
The proposed nuclear bomber was to be jet powered and, possibly, supersonic. The "jet engine" worked very much like a regular jet engine, but with heat from the nuclear reactor added to the the air instead of heat from burning fuel in the combustion chamber.
@@mellusk9194 the idea is it would have 4 "jet" type engines powered by the reactor. They were mounted just below the bomb bay installed reactor on the belly of the NB-36
11:48 You're getting loads of drag, with all those cross-struts. Plus, having wings located so close together creates interference, reducing the overall lift.
We figured that out in the early 1930's but those people don't seem to be aware
Biplanes still generate more lift than a monoplane, but only by 20%, which is disproportionate to the increase in drag. This effectively limits biplanes to applications where maximizing lift and control surface area takes priority over reducing drag, such as low speed stunt aircraft.
The guy who created the video has said he was just playing around with the software in order to learn it. He created it as a joke but somehow the world media took it as if it is a serious project that is in development. Explains why they keep falling for every vaporware company that makes a fancy cgi render. This guy should have gone to Musk with his render and cashed in on Tesla Cruise Lines TM.
@@meowfaceification The self-piloting Tesla Plane certainly might be less prone to crashing.
"No one could possibly take this seriously" was my thought exactly. All the rest is an exercise in absurdity.
(that I love!) 😄
The "this will irradiate the pilot, because shielding is difficult" reminds me of Pacific Rim. The first Jaeger pilot (can't remember his name) specifically suffered from radiation poisoning because they didn't have proper shielding on the nuclear reactor.
The first thing I thought of when I saw this ridiculous plane, was that episode of the Simpsons, where Homer designs a car.
So yeah, allowing stupid, ignorant people to design modes of transport, is really not a good idea. On the other hand, providing them with a nice "hug yourself" jacket and a well padded room, is definitely a good idea.
LMAO now I cant look at this "plane" without thinking of that ugly ass car homer designed for his brother xDD
@@MetalsirenIXI Yup. The designer of that plane, definitely got their degree in aerodynamics, from the University of Homer Simpson.
@@DermotKieran1 the designer made the thing for fun but media thought it was something that was meant to be real. he's actually making a pretty cool sci-fi movie
The amount of power needed to make it fly doesn't even enter into it. To make an airplane fly you need lift, which is generated by the wings. The larger the surface area or the higher the speed, the more lift is generated. Look at the wings on this thing! Strapping 20 engines to it won't mean shit.
Exactly, I have a friend how is an aeronautical engineer, I guess some of the conversations we've had have left a mark... when I first saw the image on this monster, I first thought about lift... never mind power, even if power was properly addressed, this cube (for all intents and purposes, it does look like a cube) will never generate enough lift to get all that weight off the ground... Also, the other thing that I could never shake off is, sure, say you manage to clear all technological hurdles, and get it to fly for years, how about food and sewage?
The fact so many media organizations thought this was a newsworthy story highlights the fact that our society is inching closer to Idiocracy every day, and that si worrisome.
Those struts connecting the wings look so aerodynamic, I'm sure they improve fuel efficiency by at least 30%
Definitely.
Yeah I checked the weight of a nuclear submarine engine, the core reactor on its own weighs 110 tons according to Wiki but about ten times more including the shielding and cooling, so non starter for flight. The irrigation circles got me thinking that it wouldn't be too hard to trigger the pipe to spray out the end where the 4 circles intersect as it seems like they could irrigate those bits too, maybe I'm underestimating the size of that space and the pressure required to spray that far, would at the very least require a separate pipe
My understanding is that, at least as far as some of those irrigation systems, the pipes aren't underground, but instead mounted above on a long boom that has a motorized wheel at the end, and it goes in a circle raining the water down from above.
Sort of a different take on the old sprinklers that make the "chat chat" noise and use a bouncing weight and a spring to make it move and turn.
First off if you look at the wings, there are engines along the the whole wing. Airplanes fly based on the the shape of the wing and the way the air goes over it unobtrusively. The wing and engine configuration is completely non workable. Also, if it has a problem and had to land there's probably only a few airports in the world that have a long enough runway to accommodate it. Another issue would be that the airplane would have to drop a mountain of sewage into the ocean probably every other day.
That's what I thought. Too little surface area to provide lift.
they did not even bother with retractable gear on the animations. it's a joke
Meh, you missed the funnier bit... based on the diagram they briefly showed, those were conventional jet engines that work by expanding gas in the combustion chamber when burning the fuel. The same effect obviously doesn't exist in an electric engine, which is the best you can get with a nuclear power plant inside of the plane, so a slightly more realistic model would use propellers instead (like the avengers').
The only other known option is what the US tried in the prototype TF showed in the video and involves compressing the air directly using the heat from the nuclear fusion reaction... in other words irradiating the ** out of the the atmosphere whenever the plane went.
@@Imman1s Good point!
That ridiculous freakshow wouldn't even function as a building.
Look up the Convair NB-36, a heavily modified Peacemaker strategic bomber with a nuclear reactor on board. It flew quite a few times with the reactor running, but I don't think it was ever used to actually power the engines.
The US (back in the 50s and 60s) actually tried to make the bomber force a bit more permanently airborne by running the electric engines off of power from a Thorium fueled/molten salt cooled reactor. They never got it to the functional test/prototype stage since they couldn't miniaturize the reactor enough.
There was also a Russian attempt. TU-95 with a nuclear reactor onboard. It was flying, but with the reactor shut down and not powering the engines.
@@iaan81 Also the Russians never shielded the pilots because of the weight.
@@villehursti No problem, if you don't tell the pilots. 🤮
No Thorium was never intended as a fuel for an Aircraft Reactor. If they were ever to make a final aircraft, they would have used weapons grade U235 or Pu239 in order to keep things as light and small as possible.
What ever happened to using thorium as reactor fuel in general? Seemed like a good idea.
1:14 a bowling alley is probably the worst thing you could put on a bus. Any time there is a small bump on the road, or the bus accelerates in any direction, it will skew your throw, meanwhile taking a huge amount of space away.
Sure, the minute we solve nuclear fusion we're going to put it in a flying hotel.
As soon as I saw this on my feed, I knew that a. this would reviewed by Thunderf00t, and b. this is seriously just the set up for another Bioshock game. Thank you for taking the time to bust this.
Oh yeah. It's a genious idea for a game
Feels like a nostalgic level on a 2011-2013 zombie game
In fact this was posted in r/workdbuilding, and someone made the cgi ad just for fun
bioshock infinite does have its flying cities easily.
I already want to play it. I can see the setup now. The economy completely failed while the plane kept flying for years and years and now no one is still alive knows how to land it.
I actually did a presentation about that nuclear powered plane in my first year of mechanical engineering. The first slide was "nuclear planes, sounds like a bad idea right?" which caused quite a bit of laughter from first year students. If you can't impress first year students in engineering you either have a huge ace up your sleeves.... But more likely your idea is really bad 😶
The Airforce when they looked into nuclear power planes many years ago realized they'd need a much smaller lighter weight reactor then anything the current technology could give them.
This led to the development of the first LFTR reactors. Unfortunately for technical reasons LFTR's just don't work with current materials we have to build them out of so completely impractical until someone solves those issues.
But if there is anyway to get a nuclear reactor small enough, light enough and with enough juice nuclear planes are totally doable. Still probably a bad idea, but doable.
@@lunaticbz3594 I like it (irony!) when people[1] ignore facts in a causal chain that they don't like or which do not fit the ideology/premise/their cause.
We know what power is needed to drive a plane/vehicle. We can also calculate which radiation occurs for a fission reactor of performance class X and which must also be shielded accordingly. None of these quantities can be debated either, they are subject to the physical laws of our nature. We know the values as they are now and here, as they will be in 1000 or a million years[3]. It doesn't matter. Atomic Planes will never(NEVER!) be an option, we can f'n calculate that!!! [2]. If you don't care about the pilots and passengers dying early and the cargo being contaminated, then of course it would work or you would somehow omit both[4] ... But that is what I mentioned in my first sentence: A plane not transporting something ... makes no sense! And lets not discuss maintainability and crashes:/
[1] I don't especially meant you with that, but "The Airforce" which you "cited" and you don't feel the need to give a source. Oh and ... you are so vague for exactly what reason? see [5]
[2] At that point in the discussion usually "the magical MacGuffin" comes up. First nothing other for shielding exists NOW and that mass is needed ... and USS-Enterprise-like science fiction energy shields would need, you guess it, energy. In fact equal or more than the power that the reactor produces, so NO!
[3] Next "MacGuffin" is the fusion reactor. Best one of those Marty McFly ones you can put in you jeans-pocket. Again, physical laws we know, young padawan. Good luck with the family planning (or better: your immediate death).
[4] Most of those "I wish/I hope/"-technology fantasies are dreams fueled by half-knowledge and ignorance. Hopes will bring an real engineer to only one place: Into JAIL!
[5] WTF are you talking about ("don't work with current materials...", etc.). The NEPA-Program reactors (1954), shown IN THE VIDEO are functioning LFTR's. And I say it again: Just because you don't understand the technology and the physical laws behind them, a reactor won't need LESS shielding. That radiation IS the source of power. So your whole train of though up there makes no sense! Sorry, but it really makes no sense:)
@@lunaticbz3594 wait we cant even make LFTRs? why is everyone raving about them so much?
@@jonathanodude6660 LFTR has a ton of potential, you can build them small, or huge its easy to scale, way more efficient, can't have a runaway reaction. Fuel's much more plentiful. There's also the claim that it be impossible to make a bomb from it. That claim's not entirely true but it would take a lot of work.
The hype around it isn't really unwarranted it could solve our energy problems rather quickly.
We can and have built them before, we know they work. But fluorene salts heated to several hundred degrees Celsius does have a tendency to eat through most materials you'd build a reactor out of.
I'm not sure how much progress has been made over the years but the one the Airforce built made it 3 days before the reactor was destroyed, and every part would have to be replaced. Which ruins the economic feasibility when your reactor only lasts a few days.
This is the type of problem that could be solved tomorrow, or 50 years from now.
Just needs a leap in material sciences, and material sciences have and are advancing quickly so I think we inevitably will figure this out.. Don't know when though.
@@lunaticbz3594 we get into the issue I have with next gen fission techniques in that there’s a big chance that we solve fusion first and then the research is for nothing. Current gen fission is quite good and very safe but there aren’t many reactors because they take so long to build, so most countries rely on previous gen ones which aren’t as safe (though already much safer than fossil fuels per megawatt hour and per year). I’d rather we build current gen reactors rapidly and focus on fusion. Especially since building LFTRs would not be faster than current reactors due to the obviously (by definition I guess) more exotic materials required.
Thank you for mentioning EBR-1 my father works at the test site near there. Awesome area!
Don't forget Gerry Anderson's science-fiction television series Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons.
That had the Spectrum Cloudbase, the skyborne headquarters of the international security organisation Spectrum.
That was also an airborne nuclear powered aircraft carrier, stationed in Earth's troposphere.
SIG, sir!
When I saw this the first thing I thought was there is no physically way a plane that large could actually fly, and if it did how horrible that “cruise” would be during turbulence. Then I thought I can’t wait for Thinderf00t to shred this to pieces
Oh, you could get something that large to fly... Just not with that profile. The wings have far too little surface area..
My first thought was mixing a swimming pool with air turbulence sounds like no problem at all. /s
I'm gonna be completely sincere. I thought you were going to roast the creator, and I was going to defend him because I truly believe he is making concept art, no real design or science.
But then somehow I see TV hosts taking this seriously and I know your video needs more coverage
5:43 - Imagine interpreting the Icarus story as an ispiration to soar higher...There aren't enough facepalms in the world for this.
didn't"t know the hangar for the atomic bomber was actually built. Wonder what's left of it.
too bad you didn't mentioned the fact that planes have really flown with nuclear reactors on board, but never turned on.
At least in the US. The Soviets did it, they had a plane with a functional reactor and a jet engine (basically an heat exchanger) that actually worked. But it was canceled too. You know it's a bad idea when even soviets, who are well known for doing crazy things with nuclear technologies, forget about it.
7:11 and you can make money 💰if you invest now. It’s USA USA 🇺🇸
Has the reason for its cancellation released to the public? It must be so so bad and unfeasible!!!
@@charlesk22 It's several major shortcomings-- even the largest reactor that a plane could carry has only about 5% of the power needed to keep the plane aloft. Plus reactors are very slow to go up or down in power level which is critical for taking off or landing. One quick power-down for landing and the reactor is in a xenon or iodine well which takes 3 days to recover from. Major and unavoidable issues.
I heard that the US and Soviets did the calculations and the US said the shielding would make it impossible to pilot. The Soviets tried it without shielding and still couldn't make it work.
@@ociemitchell lol
My parents watched this. They asked why I was laughing at it. I pointed out the first thing I could think of: it’s a stupid ass idea to power this thing with a nuclear reactor, and it’s even stupider to think that it can be powered by a fusion reactor. The most promising fusion reactors are the size of a large warehouse, and don’t even make any power! Not to mention the reactor is probably about as heavy as the guess he made on the weight of the plane. Do some simple, basic research, people!
The problem is your average if they think about it at all is a nuclear reactor is just a big box with uranium in it and you plug your electricity cables into it.
With the funding going into nuclear fusion I’d say your wrong, mark my word. one day reactor will be the size of a fridge if not even smaller.
@@richardgutierrez848 not this side 2100
When you see computer generated scams online and your first thought is: "looking forward for Thunderf00t video". Mission accomplished!
I appreciated the clip driving through Idaho. I’m from Utah but live basically on the border of Idaho. I’ve drove through Idaho a lot to go to the St. Anthony sand dunes, get to a lot of good trails, and also to visit family. Despite looking like nothing is there, there is a lot of good dirt biking trails, same with southern Utah. Anyways, You described the process of driving through 90% of Idaho quite accurately. Also sometimes those dirt farms have potatoes 👍
The 'its all AI controled' is the most laughable part of this. So someone could just hack the system(IT security would be one of the first corners cut on a project like this) or even a glitch could occur and cognates, now the AI thinks up is down and you have a meat glass and metal filled nuclear bomb heading for the ground.
absolute best case scenario is a HAL type story.
You can't hack something that's not connected to the internet. Might as well try to hack a banana. How on Earth do you look at this monstrosity and think "What if someone hacks it?" and not "Why does it have a Centerparks on it?"
@@ashscott6068 there would likely be some sort of data connection between it and the ground (otherwise there would be a high chance of a mid air collision), and if the place where that data connection goes to is not completely isolated from the outside, then that is a potential entry point for hacking
Most planes are auto piloted so what would be so different here?
I don't think hacking is the biggest issue here, the biggest issue is probably going to be reliability. The processors on modern aircraft are actually not that powerful but they are extremely rugged and reliable. Even those sometimes have weird glitches or problems which caused near-accidents. Now, if you needed a more powerful processor, you'd need a more compact one (e.g. smaller process node) which are generally more prone to error. So I think reliability would be a major issue.
All they have to do is... Master nuclear fusion, make a working reactor or lots of them, then make a flying fortress capable of carrying them and flying, as well as make a runway capable of holding it whilst breaking physics. Finally they just need to make an A.I capable of flying it... I mean come on, it's really not that hard. Musk would have it done by Christmas. 😉
Musk: This is what we can do... now.
Working prototype by next year.
The ai already exists
@@tomthestone1470 for a pilotless plane that weighs more than a skyscraper whilst holding nuclear reactors? No, I don’t think a standard auto pilot covers that…
Great video
Thunderf00t! You have learned me a new life skill over this year i've been a subscriber. And thats to question everything
I, also, am not on board with people calling it the new Titanic: *the Titanic was feasible*
I highly doubt this thing would ever get off the ground. Creating a model and render of something is cool, but to me the aerodynamics look pretty incapable of creating enough lift.
Completely agree, especially since just looking at the "wings" you can tell that the wings are a joke to physics.
Span aside the airflow over them would be so disturbed by the engines and turbulence from the second wing that you literally could not generate any less lift than this thing could.
Not to mention that even if it all worked on magic it would need to fly so fast that it would probably just burn up from friction.
@@vegas9202 those support beams would also disrupt any flow going past every other engine
whole thing was made just for fun, it was never meant to be a real project
Off the ground? I highly doubt the first rivet would meet the first panel. Because it's a money sink scam. Like everything else that people tag the word 'futurist' to.
And even IF you could make it, it would be exceptionally dangerous.
I see the big problem being volume is cubed, while surface area is squared, and length is linear. Doubling the length and width of the wingspan quadruples the wing area, but it increases the volume and mass of the plane by 8 times. That leads to material and structural problems, but it should lead to aerodynamic problems too.
Lift is ultimately a function of Newtons Third Law of Motion, Bernoulli's Principle doesnt actually address lift, only airflow. All airplanes propel air downwards with a force equal to the mass of the plane, in order to fly. So this massive airplane, which has inadaquate wing area due to volume/mass being the square of surface area, would have to displace air downwards equal to its mass. The only way to do that would be to increase the speed, since i dont believe that the airfoil increasing in height would adaquately increase the effectiveness of the airfoil. Lift has more to do with angle of attack, and you cant go beyond a stall AoA.
The majority of the lift is caused by pressure differences sucking air downwards. Still technically Newton's, but because Bernoulli caused the deflection of air to begin with
@@nade5557 Bernoulli's principle really only describes the airflow and flow attachment, and it gets false ideas into people's heads. The bottom of an airfoil doesnt do anything, the rear portion of the top of the airfoil pulls air downwards because the flow stays attached to the surface. The air behind the wing has a downwards inertia equal to the lift imparted on the wing.
And then, practically the entirety of the lift on any airplane comes from angle of attack, and not an airfoil. With a positive AoA, the bottom of the wing deflects air downwards, and the top of the wing redirects air downwards due to flow attachment.
The point of it all, was to say that this enormous airplane would need to propel a mass of air downwards with force equal to the plane's mass. The wing area would quickly become insufficient as the volume of the plane grew, as the lift of the wings would scale with wingspan more than height or length of the airfoil, but even then not at a cubed rate. Look at how big the wings are on the Spruce Goose.
But the hyper loop invented vibrauim problem solved. ;)
@@SpecialEDy I thought the aerodynamic centre is 1/4 the chord length from the leading edge so how is the rear top section of the airfoil responsible for pulling air down. I know viscosity but surely the low pressure from bernoulli causes a net downwards movement of air
Just imagine what this thing must weight, alone the pools would already make it extremely heavy, then there are the restaurants the fitness studio and all the other stuff too.
It also needs working sewage system and everything around it and the Plane itself would need massive crews for maintenance and repairs. Alone all this would cut down the amount of people that can enter it.
You would also need a police and emergency station that are on a 24h standby and even more you would need a massive amount of food and a possible waste storage that doesn't disturb the customers and probably even more than that.
From those "5000" would probably be 90-95% working while the rest can walk around, if they didn't include all the people working
And can you imagine weight balancing this monstrosity?.
@@MrRobinhalligan put one shop to many on the right side?
And now we need a nother shop of the same weight on the other side as well.
Would be total horror in planning
@@MrRobinhalligan And that 5000 people roaming around would always wiggle that balance as they roam from their rooms to the pools, then to the restaurant... and with that the crew needed to move too and the logistics to move things around (from the fridges to the kitchen then to the restaurants and... then back to the rooms (in the stomachs of the people) - oh well :)
@@mityaboy4639 exactly my point
you"d need a keel weight
Another tidbit is that biplanes create more drag when the wings are that close ( typically when less than the chord width)
I was literally like "I should check tfoot in case I missed some new video because I haven't seen any in a while"
"It would remain in the air for years"
Umm, okay, then how are people expected to get on and off the thing?
Or do you buy your ticket and then you're stuck on this flying hotel for the next 3 years, like it or not?
Easy, you just parachute out! Then the planed can pick up more passengers using the STARS system. Makes total sense!
They use transporters like Star Trek
You get to skydive over china and land in north Korea. Or. Just use the elevator. But I think if something like this ever existed they would surely have air taxis provided by space x. They would look like a cyber truck limo with wings
If you take a look at 24:18 during the outro I think you'll find your answer. Basically, they're taking the air-to-air refueling approach, only stupider.
my god they didn't think past "wouldn't it be cool if we made a nuclear powered hotel/plane?"
As someone who works with radiation, I take a small offense to the simplification of taking mass to be the same as shielding...
But I do like your shortcut!
So, just some more information:
What shields you from photon radiation is the interactions between photons from your source and electrons from the atoms in your shielding. The more electrons the better, indeed.
But if you can densely pack these electrons, thats even better.
The radius of an atom thus matters, and the heavier an element is (more protons = more weight & more electrons), the better.
So looking at the periodic table... what element is the most to the right and on the lowest rung, solid at room temperature, readily available, cheap and safe?
You end up with lead, Pb, every time.
Why then use concrete at all? Well, having to put lead in everything isnt always great. Think of the support a heavy leaded door needs.
If you have the options to build thicker walls and poor them of concrete... they offer the same protection and add to the structure, rather than being a load on the structure. Dont forget, if there is a office above the source, your ceiling needs to be just as thick as the walls...
The rule of thumb I learned for radiation protection was 1 inch of steel, one foot of concrete, or one yard of wood or dirt. That's why fallout shelters are always either buried 3 feet down, or made from either a foot of concrete or an inch of steel, and the doors are always an inch of steel.
Imagine putting this in the video.
So tungsten would be a better shield than lead?
@@FullFledged2010 The atomic mass of lead is higher, and tungsten is rather rare.
@@FullFledged2010 How about unobtanium? Apparently a layer only a few mil thick is all that’s required to shield the reactor. Elon Musk makes the stuff in the same factory as hyperloop. /s 😆😆😆
This project is one big COMIC RELIEF in the sea of serious legit projects no one understands :D
The Thunderbirds references made me nostalgic. Gonna start watching em now. Also, is it me, or there is something about 60s, 70s and 80s that makes you feel comfortable and warm inside 😀 The footage, the voices, the speech, everything seems so nice and cool.
probably it's the age thing, I feel the same way about early 2000s
Yeah, I have a sweet spot for the Supermarionation stuff. Gerry Anderson, truly a genius.
I gotta agree, I think it's because back then there were serious limitations in technology that meant that they had to get creative when it came to making movies. They didn't have 4k digital recording and CGI with ultra-highdef volumetric lighting, they had to make do with film and practical effects, which makes the effect even more impressive than what can be accomplished by modern cinema technology. nowadays people take CGI and high definition imaging for granted and so many movies are just meaningless spectacle instead of having to rely on actual engaging stories, characters, settings, and a hearty helping of out of the box thinking when it comes to practical effects that characterize those old movies.
It's not just me, then :-)
Something tells me you have barely scratched the surface of the engineering nightmares that building this thing would bring. Just a few that come to my mind: the speed needed to create enough lift to keep this monstrosity in the air. Building a flying structure with enough strength to support the weight of the power plants. Getting rid of the heat produced by the plants. The deafening roar created when dissipating gigawatts of energy over a small area. Keeping the thing supplied with food, water, basically anthing, while it is in the air. Getting people on and off while it is in the air. Etc etc. - we haven't even touched on any of this, and you have already killed the concept stone dead. So... yeah, probably not.
I remember most of the journalism majors in my university weren’t in frequent attendance to their university sponsored basic science courses, but they were often spotted at commercial alchemy establishments mixing, drinking and snorting their way towards a brighter future.
Most media people don't have a clue about tech, which is why we get this shit from them. Unfortunately, Joe Public thinks they are an authority. That's also how Elon Musk gets away with his bullshit - the media presenting him as a "genius".
That explains a lot. Now they're in "power", so-to-speak, to disseminate their deserved wisdom upon us mere simpletons.
15:50 "Megadeth: good name for a band"
The entire nuclear powered plane concept was dropped by the US back in the post WW2 era…it proved to heavy …too dangerous to passengers ( radiation exposure) and civilians when it crashes 😯
Also the service crew as the shielding was only for the cockpit, because of the weight. So they would need special shielded aircraft shelters and service the bomber in heavy radiation suits.
Oh no shit really? Both of u 🤣
@@Srt3D01-db-01 lol!
The engines are on display at EBR-1 out in Idaho.
I saw this and knew immediately this can't be done. Weight, costs, safety, and then the aerodynamics of those engine obstructed wings 🤣
its from a reddit CG joke, and someone went all in and made up a story about it and "news"=talk shows ate it up.
Max-headroom and Not-for-broadcast can be proud of fooling the idiots like that.
these are like the things from popsci magazines from decades past, only these things are worse and more stupid and get more publicity.
A nuclear powered flying hotel is just a luxurious nuclear bomber with extra steps.
no, it's a money sinking nuclear disaster in the air
Can we even fly a plane with nuclear power really?
I thought the plant works just like a coal powerplant heats water to steam that turns turbines.
Where in the air would you get all that water?
Popcorn (check)....beer (check).....seatbelt (check)....incoming moronic inferno (check). So looking forward to this!.....
"powered by nuclear *fusion"*
Ah. Always great when some megaproject that's made it all the way to the CGI rendering stage is dependent on technologies that we simply do not have and will not have commercially viable for decades or longer.
come on man we all know fusion's coming in 30 years
Nuclear fusion is almost here. It's written in the Quran.
11:11 These chocks just got a place in my heart. There is no way this thing could take off alone through these. Clearly however made this CGI had never seen an plane on the ground before.
Btw.: Good thing Elon didn't discover these good old aircooled nuclear reactors yet.
The one who made the CGI for this was doing it for fun
I like how they could not figure out how to hide the wheels in the plane. especially considering that it is a cgi concept. Must have been to difficullt to delete the geometry.
This model was probably just a kitbash with a little custom work.
I saw this a few weeks ago... I was surprised there wasn't a busted video yet... now my world is complete
I have been wondering all along if this were a Sci-Fi fantasy--and there is nothing wrong with giant, nuclear-powered, flying hotels in a fictional Sci-Fi/Fantasy story--or if it were a deliberate hoax meant to troll the Internet.
It's the same with New Age and other fantasy stuff. Great in well-written stories, especially in movies where the special effects let the viewer experience psychic and magical powers, but in reality you'd better get your head checked if you believe in the Force or in receiving special messages from aliens in other dimensions.
@Gernot Schrader The Astermorph did not, infact, believe in the the Gravital Force.
Basically, it's a simple test to see who belongs to the 83% imbeciles (and the media) who can't intuitively tell total BS from a feasible concept, and the rest of us.
It was originally posted on r/worldbuilding, a community for writers, game designers, artists, etc to discuss and share their fictional worlds, so yes, it's sci fi. Turns out some people are just very, very stupid.
Having trained at the Nautilus prototype in 1980 which is at or very close to the site you visited. I can assure you that the engine you saw sitting near ERB-1 was in fact used to propel some sort of test rig on a runway. That site and runway was radioactive and off-limits for years. They must have hauled the radioactive material to another location. That site is also near the location of the fatal SL-1 nuclear reactor. There is a lot of history at that location.
I saw that Sky-Hotel video pop up on my TH-cam feed and immediately dismissed it. You went with the power source as your argument. I would have liked to see you examine the lift needed for a plane carrying a reactor (fusion or fission), shielding , the guests, and swimming pools of water. I'm fairly certain wings to support such weight in a usable form factor would be impossible to build using materials currently know to man.
You know, I think there was no need for "fairly" in your last sentence. Haha. Certain covered it. This couldn't even be built, much less fly.
Yeah my first thoughts exactly in the opening were about why those wings have zero chance of ever lifting that plane
I was skeptical of it at first, but once they said there wouldn't be any pilots I was relieved and convinced of its viability. Not sure why there's so many doubters still.
And if you look at the rendering the landing gear doesn't retract saving complexity.
🤣. Good one! Actually made me chuckle. At least, I hope you are joking. With that being the case minimally it would never be operable in the US as the FAA already has rules against such a thing.
@@brianm.595 I'm going to try and build one in kerbal space program well see if it works when I control physics.
The Soviets also had a Nuclear Powered Bomber project. Soviets ran into the same problem as the US the pilots were getting exposed to too much radiation. Soviets biggest concern was this would make their Pilots sterile and not be able to have children. The novel Soviets fix to this was we'll just use Old Pilots that are past breeding age. Thank god both programs were eventually cancelled.
Lol and sad at the same time
The way they treated people...
Nuclear bomber pilots were issued with eye patches so that when they were blinded by the first nuclear bomb going off they could still see out of one eye to drop the second one.
just having the crews irradiated by the powerplant would not have stopped them
Also why seamen (think pirates in movies) wore eye patches. One eye kept for night vision when they had to go below deck for something.
I believe they tried this on mythbusters and it works.
So stupid.
When I saw a friend share this, I was seriously skeptical. I knew nuclear-powered aircraft isn't gonna be a thing because of how heavy the shielding is.
or that it would kill the crew and passengers if you take away the shielding.
Eh it was done as a test in the 50s the NB-36 and it did actually fly it’s not unreasonable for an aircraft to be nuclear powered what’s unreasonable is the size of the thing and the wingspan looks far to small to keep the aircraft aloft
@@jameson1239 yeah the wings would need to be massively massive
@@jameson1239 that version of the B36 peacemaker was only carrying operational nuclear reactor, but the reactor was not providing propulsion...it was decided that besides the huge problems related to the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear reactor crashing into the ground from a great height, the problem of how to convert the nuclear energy into propulsion (in a way that didn't spew radioactive contamination out the back end) was deemed to be a problem to big to solve
@@toomanyaccounts most crews were on a oneway trip anyway
Yes! SuperBus! Been a long time since I've seen that. I'd guess you have a very interesting video collection, that I've probably seen a fair amount of.
The second I saw this project I was like "that sounds like something thats gonna end up in a thunderf00t video"
If it's in the air for months at a time, how do you check in and out?
Parachutes and Circus cannons!
I reckon the plane itself will also have some sort of built in hanger... which in reality may not be so safe to operate
A teleportation app on your smart phone 🖖
"You can check-out any time you like"
"But you can never leave!"
Long ladders
When I saw the headline in the news, I immediately thought
"Well, that's not gonna work. Can't wait to see the Busted video on it."
Thanks for being so consistent
The NB-36H was a very real 'nuclear powered' aircraft that flew almost 50 test flightrs, it was extremely impractical because the shielding needed to make it safe for the crew(and only the crew on the plane) made it extremely heavy, the shielding was so heavy, that only the crew area was shielded, meaning ground crew were in danger, because of this the reactor was designed to be lowered out of the bomb bay into an underground vault while not flying.
The NB36H was equipped with a 1 megawatt reactor that weighed 36 thousand pounds(10% of the weight).
The thing is, 1 megawatt is under 1400HP.
This plane needed a total of 4 turbojet engines producing 20 thousand punds of thrust, and 6 radial engines producing 22 thousand horsepower to fly, the reactor was only there for test purposes.
Yes with more modern reactors and shielding the reactor could come down in weight, output more power, and the shielding would weigh a little less, but the idea of an airborne nuclear powered aircraft, that had human crew was quickly ruled to be inpractical, much like the WS125, which thankfully would have used a closed loop system.
They did however prove that an unshielded nuclear powered cruise missile would work, the problem was that the only way to get enough thrust, was to have atmospheric area pass through the reactor and expand in much the same way a scramjet works. However, this would lead to dangerous levels of fallout, basically making this a flying dirty bomb until it hit its target, polluting the entire flight path with radioactive isotopes
As an addendum to this, I heard somewhere (can't remember where) that an idea was tossed around once to have a nuclear powered aircraft with little to no shielding, but crewed by service members that were nearing retirement age. The logic being that they'd die of old age before the radiation exposure could give them cancer. Because who gives a shit about ethics, right?
@@IBeforeAExceptAfterK I think i recall something like this, but i think the logic was that they'd die normally before cancer had time to develop, i think chernobyl had something like this, i dont recall this for a nuclear aircraft.
Shielding was one of the first things I thought about when I saw that. BTW, finding how much shielding you need is not that easy, because googling "how big is a nuclear reactor in submarine" gives you basically nothing useful, but after some time I found something about the size, then I just had to find out how much lead would be needed to shield it. Then I applied those numbers to some airbus (I think it was A380, the big one, but it is about a year ago. Surprisingly it is about same size as a nuclear submarine) and just the weight of the shielding (not the reactor itself) was about 50%, maybe 60% over how much that plane can carry. Sure, you would probably save some weight in fuel, but it was still way over the limit. Shielding is huge problem, I'm surprised Thunderf00t didn't mention how much it would weight. (I wonder if my calculations were at least close).
The puppet part is so terrifying for me. The uncanny valley is too real.
Adding to your axle weight calculations for a second, don't forget that the initial take-off rotation of the aircraft is basically just the horizontal stabiliser pushing the tail down hard enough to lift the nose. The fulcrum are those 6 axles. It's a safe assumption that the weight on those wheels doubles momentarily as the nose is lifted.
The airflow over the wings as the plane accelerates down the runway generates lift. By the plane reaches its rotation speed, the wing is already flying. As the nose of the plane rises, it increases the angle of attack of the wing (the angle at which the chord of the wing is relative to the oncoming air), increasing the force of lift such that it exceeds the plane's weight, so that the plane lifts off.
@@grantwhite1428
Build your best and most beautiful balsa wood airplane. Now fasten it elegantly to a very very large cinder block. Please let me know the results of your test flights. Rather than ferrying African or Indian elephants across a large flat River we could just have a dragonfly pick them up and fly them across.
@orbiting teapot When you say "theory", you mean like the theory of gravity or the chemtrails conspiratard "theory"?
Internet insults aside, let's talk wings. What you've (probably) been told by the media, "science educators" and "science communicators" is a lie. Well, not a lie exactly, more of a gross oversimplification to the point of being completely useless as a model of reality (see Einstein quote about simplicity). May as well be a lie though.
In the grand scheme of things, wings generate lift by means of momentum change. That is, any momentum they impart on the surrounding air is by definition imparted back on them (Newton's 2nd and 3rd). In the case of lift, that's momentum in the vertical direction, which is to say - wings push air down. Air has inertia (Newton's 1st), so it pushes the plane up (Newton's 3rd).
By far the most effective way to do that is to angle the wing so its chord line isn't parallel to the free stream flow around it. The chord line, by the way, is drawn between the forward-most point of the wing (leading edge) and aft-most point (trailing edge), where it usually comes to a cusp. Wanna pull the plane up more? Angle it further up. Simple as that. ...
@orbiting teapot ... The angle between the chord line and free stream is called the angle of attack. This is different from the aircraft's (and wing's) overall angle of incidence, as when climbing or descending the free stream is also at an angle to the horizon. All we care about for now is the angle of attack. When the leading edge is pointed up and the trailing edge - down, that's a positive angle of attack.
The relationship between lift and angle of attack is linear within the flight envelope. That is, assuming a symmetrical profile (we'll talk about that later), a wing will produce twice as much lift at 4° as it will at 2°. It's helpful to visualise this as a straight line of lift vs angle of attack which, for the moment, crosses (0,0).
This is how pilots directly control how much lift a wing is producing at any one time.
The other way to produce lift is by making the wing's profile (called aerofoil) asymmetric. This asymmetry is called camber. On the aerofoil diagram, the camber line (actually it's usually a curve) is drawn so it always represents the mid-point between top and bottom surface (remember, the chord line is from front to back only, straight line). This usually ends up looking like a little hump going over the top of the chord line. On symmetrical aerofoils (such as those used for the tail stabilisers and control surfaces), the chord is also the camber line. ...
@orbiting teapot ... Camber has several effects. First and foremost, per what you've heard from the media/etc I slandered above, camber creates asymmetric flow which results in some lift at 0° angle of attack. This moves the whole lift curve up a bit (on the straight line plot I mentioned earlier), but has no effect on its slope. That is to say, the rate at which lift increases with angle stays the same. This is useful at cruise speeds, but too little to affect the rest of the flight.
Secondly, camber will tend to alter the stall characteristics of the wing a little bit. We can discuss stall if you want, but for now let's just call it the wing's angle of attack limit, beyond which it produces very little lift and lots of drag (I lied, the lift curve isn't really straight, at a certain point it tapers off and drops to 0). Pilots are acutely aware of stall and train how to manage it. Adding a bit of camber stacks the deck in their favour by (sometimes) extending the maximum safe angle of attack, and increasing the lift available at said angle.
Thirdly, camber is used (on _some_ aircraft, like the B787) to address the problem created by parts of the wing going supersonic as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound. This is called transonic flight and it creates small shockwaves on parts of the airframe. These shockwaves can stall the section of wing behind them if they're big enough and on older aircraft they can get pretty big. These specially cambered aerofoils make the shockwaves smaller (to reduce the likelihood of shock stall) and push them further back (to reduce the effect of shock stall, if it happens). Older aircraft are known to have lost effectiveness of control surfaces because of this when going too fast, some Russian WW1 or WW2 (can't remember exactly) planes have crashed because they sped up too much and couldn't pull out of a dive. These new-ish aerofoils are pretty awesome in comparison! ...
Also the nuclear plane idea was basically what was funding the molten salt reactor concept, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten any funding for the research.
They knew the plane idea was stupid, but at least they got funding for something that wasn't.
Thunderfoot keeping us grounded in reality. Thank you good sir!
Nice! You got me with those circles on the ground in Idaho.
I also like the meme of facepalming Picard wo essentially flies a nuclear powered cruiseship 😆.
hey, a flying nuclear reactor...sounds fun, safe and plausible
Fire flash has no problems with it, oh wait! Call international rescue again.
The future is not green its orange and broadcasts radio
It was done before with the NB-36
Nuclear can be extremely safe
you see this was actually done en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft
I don't know if you missed a point, or if I just don't know enough about nuclear power (both possible): Don't nuclear reactors generate electricity, by turning water into steam, that then drives turbines that generate electricity usinged giant dynamos? And to do that constantly, you have to turn the steam back to water, to repeat the process. In a nuclear power plant this is done, by large cooling towers or often by taking water out of rivers around, to cool down stuff. On a nuclear aircraft carrier or submarine, I guess there is enough water around to do the necessary cooling. But how would a nuclear powered plane do the necessary cooling? Of course there is a lower temperature up there, but also way thinner air, so is it even possible to cool a reactor down in the air?
They would use thorium-powered solar roadways to capture water from the air. This craft will also be capable of flying high enough to capture vacuum from space to send down to recharge the Hyperloop, reducing the number of vacuum pumps needed.
It is all part of a genius plan.
You are correct about how nuclear power stations work. The cooling towers (or river/sea) is not to cool the reactor but to condense the exhaust steam from the turbines, which makes them much more efficient. On a plane you would need to condense the exhaust steam also to preserve water, and you would need to use air cooling for this. Most old railway steam locos did not bother to condense the exhaust steam - they just carried and consumed lots of water, exhausting it into the air.
The cooling isn't even the largest problem. You need heavy dense materials between the cabin and the reactor.
Check out Plainly Difficult's video on the HTRE. They were air cooled systems that heated incoming air and blasted it out of the back. The GE design is in Thunderfoot's own video here.
was waiting for this one. Hilarious seeing people share this on social media.
0:18 I finally made it to a Thunderfoot video.....I can die a happy man.
My favourite bits were the swimming pool on board an aircraft, and the undercarriage being down at 35000 feet.
I remember when the video dropped on reddit. I thought it was fun and creative. I didn't think anybody would be dumb enough to actually take it at face value and think that it could exist in reality. But here we are.
Even if we were in sci-fi land and we had no issues with the power source.
How fast should that thing go in order to remain airborne and how do you resupply / remove waste from that deathtrap while being in the air for months?
More CGI duh. Or dump it over North Korea.
Waste management: Who cares about the Peasants below. Dust to dust and manure to manure.
heard about transporters form star trek?
hello?
Waste disposal is easy enough: Just dump it out a hole in the bottom. The peons already get plenty of shit from their capitalist overlords, might as well make it literal.
Hey Thonderfoot you got something completely wrong in your video!!
They want to power it with nuclear fusion reactors not classic fission.
So it is alot more efficient.
Havent you learned from Iron man how small fusion reacrors are just incredibly powerfull and safe?
Also consume more energy than they create
That image of Picard is one of my favorites nowadays.
The need to be "first" joined with the fact that there is not downside to being wrong, means that any crap is good to present to the public.