[AR] Re: MSR reactors.
- From: <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 19:35:52 -0400
Here's an interesting GE timeline that was in my inbox from Aviation Leak
and Spy News.
https://aviationweek.com/ge-100-taking-power-skies
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 6:23 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: MSR reactors.
Axial compressors and variable stator compressor geometries were the big
contributors to the pressure ratio and efficiency increase. Not to mention,
eliminating nagging compressor stalls that occurred at the most inopportune
times. It took quite a while before GE got axial compressors to work well
and reliably. Centrifugal compressors still have their place though. I just
finished "The History of North American Small Jet Engines" by Richard Leyes.
It's a very good read and reference.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of Henry Spencer
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 5:19 PM
To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: MSR reactors.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019, Anthony Cesaroni wrote:
...If the reactor and particularly all of the biological shielding
didn't weigh so much, it would have been the ticket for the proposed
air breathing jet engine cycles. The USAF just had to have a nuclear
bomber so they plowed on despite all the obvious silliness of the
whole
concept.
In fairness, it didn't look quite so silly in the beginning, or more
precisely, all the competing concepts looked even sillier. If it was the
late 1940s and you really, really wanted an intercontinental *jet* bomber,
it was easy to think that a nuclear engine was the only option. Late-40s
jet engines not only had dismally poor T/W, they were also terrible fuel
hogs. For a short-range defensive fighter, okay, but intercontinental?
For that mission, either you had to settle for propellers, or you needed a
power source better than chemical fuels -- and there was an obvious
candidate.
Over the following 10-15 years, not only did the full extent of the
shielding problem become apparent, but also, plain old kerosene-fueled jet
engines got *enormously* better. In piston engines, it's called compression
ratio; in jets, it's "pressure ratio". Late-40s jet engines had quite low
pressure ratios, which is why they performed so poorly in most ways (about
the only thing good about them was no propeller). Then people started
experimenting with higher pressure ratios, and boy did that ever make a
difference. In 1945, a kerosene-fueled intercontinental jet bomber was an
absurdity; by 1960, Boeing was testing the B-52H, the final
B-52 variant, with an *unrefueled* range of over 13,000 miles! And at some
ill-defined point in between, the urgent need for nuclear aircraft
propulsion quietly disappeared, although it took a while for that to sink
in.
The same thing happened to ramjets, assorted concepts for ducted rockets,
etc. In 1945, they looked quite competitive with turbojets and were worth
at least serious consideration. By 1960, not so much, unless you had some
really unusual requirement.
Henry
Other related posts: