![]() | Project Pluto has been listed as one of the
Warfare good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 16, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Once powered up, the unshielded half-gigawatt nuclear reactor would emit highly lethal radiation in a large radius; such a vehicle could not possibly be human-piloted or reused. Indeed, some questioned whether a cruise missile derived from Project Pluto would need a warhead at all; the radiation from its engine, coupled with the shock wave that would be produced by flying at Mach 3 at treetop level, would have left a wide path of destruction wherever it went. Contrary to some reports, the exhaust of the engine would not itself be highly radioactive. Also, the nuclear engine could in principle operate for months, so a Pluto cruise missile could simply fly a long and winding pattern over enemy territory to cause incredible damage.
You would not stand next to it when it was running, but is it really such a strong emitter that as it flies past at supersonic speed it kills people with radiation?
Like neutron bombs, I question whether the radiation would severely affect anyone who was not damaged worse by the shock wave.
This is without considering the actual energies and radius involved, becuase I have neither figures nor the right mathematics for it, but it seems likely that being say 700 m from it would not be unduly hazardous. In order to deliver 400 REM to someone standing within 700m it would need to deliver that dose to them within 2 seconds or less (sound is 700m/s isn't it?). It may be worth doing the actual sums on that. Midgley 15:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The speed of sound is 342m/s, but that's not really important. The Gregg Herken article (and its pictures) give the impression that the reactor did not heat the air indirectly, but rather the "reactor" was a large beehive-like array of thousands of "pencil sized ceramic fuel elements" that the ram air was forced through. The reactor itself was in the stream and completely exposed (within the duct), not just unshielded. Half way down the page: http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html there is a picture of the reactor itself on its side-- a big cylindrical block composed of thousands of small nuclear fuel infused ceramic tubes that were the fuel elements themselves (at least that's my interpretation); it was, in a simple sense, just an air-cooled reactor (take your standard reactor, strip away all the shielding, casings, control rods, cooling systems, water jackets, etc., and cool the core with a blast of air instead). So, normal nuclear reactor radiation doses: yes it would be there, and yes it would seem to me that those doses would be low as the missile would pass by very quickly. However, the exhaust stream would contain radiactive contaminants (since the fuel elements are in direct contact with the exhaust stream and the material would ablate to some extent no matter how good the material was), so yes, I would think that the exhaust would leave fallout behind. How significant would it be? If flight really could last "months or even years" then apparently the reactor must not erode too quickly, but five minutes of engine test is not enough to determine such details I wouldn't think. Interesting project regardless. Nwilde ( talk) 22:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
This is really nice that so much work was put into this article. It really gives the subject some depth on the Wiki. I linked Supersonic Low Altitude Missile to this one, and delisted P.P. from the [[Category:Cruise missiles]], as it was just the engine, and not the missile itself. Maybe we should have a [[Category:Tactical aeronautical powerplants]], or something. –– Clarknova 18:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Since nuclear power gave it almost unlimited range, the missile could cruise in circles over the ocean until ordered "down to the deck" for its supersonic dash to targets in the Soviet Union." - Wikipedia article.
"Since nuclear power gave it almost unlimited range, the missile could cruise in circles over the ocean until ordered "down to the deck" for its supersonic dash to targets in the Soviet Union." - Gregg Herken article.
This entry just seems to be bits and pieces strung together from the Herken article. There are many more instances of the entry using directly copied lines from the article.
Omegashade 03:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
http://www.oobject.com/nuclear-powered-transportation/nuclear-reactor-for-ramjet-icbm/2071/ Sourced from [3] (archive of missing .mil site) -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Can't find anything where we're meant to talk about merging this article with something about low altitude cruise missiles, but a link from the page said "Discuss" and I clicked it.
...that is, I clicked it to say that I think it would be a terrible idea. Not sure that's really necessary, mind you, having looked at the talk page; no one here seems to be seriously considering merging the two articles. So I wonder why it was brought up at all? This is pretty clearly a page about a nuclear-powered ramjet, almost completely unrelated to any low-altitude cruise missiles except in that such an engine could conceivably be used to power one.
So can someone take that silly merge thing off now? :)
...if not, let's just say my vote is, "No. Do not merge." >.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer884 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
At the time of this posting, there are no Wikipedia references to document that a nuclear ramjet ever existed. Accordingly, this article needs an acknowledgment that at some time, Project Pluto went black again. Given the lack of any sources, it is very easy to argue that no nuclear ramjet ever existed, considering the documented difficulty of developing Ramjets. On the other hand, is is obvious to anyone with a technical background, that once a working nuclear ramjet was developed, it would never be abandoned, only refined and improved.
Either way, it should be important to document when the last verifiable reference became unavailable, or to document that, while widely discussed in the "skunk works" community, no authoritative reference is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinux ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I am uncertain of the import of this comment.There certainly was a nuclear ramjet. I am probably the last living engineer who worked on thee Pluto Program. In 1957, as a 25 year old engineer I went to work for the Marquardt corporation in Van Nuys California, on the Pluto Program, which had as its goal the design and development of a nuclear ramjet for use as a cruise missile. I did the first thermodynamic optimization of the nuclear reactor, calculating the optimum L/D for maximum thrust, given certain fixed parameters. An actual engine was built and tested after I left the program. Morton L. Caplan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.118.83 ( talk) 16:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Project Pluto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 14:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
14:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Responses
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Dealt with. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)