If the Hindenburg was Carrying Helium...

One of the links in the post had details with a 50 ton reactor. It was lighter than the IC engine + fuel. Also, you remove the weight needed for ballast. And we use near weapons grade or weapons grade in the USN now. I don't see a huge issue.

The reactors in the USN (among other things) are required to be manned 24 x 7 x 365. I can't think of any other industry involved in transport where that kind of expense and manpower is involved. British Airways doesn't have to have a flight engineer on a 747 whether flying or not. Deutsche Bahn doesn't need an engineer in a train that isn't being used.
 
One of the links in the post had details with a 50 ton reactor. It was lighter than the IC engine + fuel. Also, you remove the weight needed for ballast. And we use near weapons grade or weapons grade in the USN now. I don't see a huge issue.

What would be the point of a nuclear zeplin anyway? Would it be cheap to build? What if it crashes?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The reactors in the USN (among other things) are required to be manned 24 x 7 x 365. I can't think of any other industry involved in transport where that kind of expense and manpower is involved. British Airways doesn't have to have a flight engineer on a 747 whether flying or not. Deutsche Bahn doesn't need an engineer in a train that isn't being used.


AWAC. Just like a nuclear submarine, its flight time will be limited by the food and water it can carry. So for example, imagine 24/7 coverage of soviet naval bases with radar starting in 1965 using 3 Zeppelins per regional area. Or the reverse, 24/7 coverage of the USA eastern seaboard from Zeppelins based in Cuba.

I may not have been clear. I see militaries developing the technology including the nuclear power. Civilians ones probably don't use the technology or have some type of partnership with the Navy. The same Zeppelin watching for a Soviet attack over can also be collecting whale data, much like our SONUS network did post cold war.

And obviously with the huge cost involved, it has to used a lot or have an extremely valuable mission. I know it may sound crazy, but it makes more sense than the Jet Powered Sea Plane strategic bomber that actually went into early production before being canceled.

What would be the point of a nuclear zeplin anyway? Would it be cheap to build? What if it crashes?

Have not done the work on nuclear Zeppelin, but an interwar Zeppelin in a production run would be about the cost of a CL, maybe a DD. So for a guess, you are looking at probably what a nuclear powered CL would cost in 1960. Now I don't know the cost issues between a nuclear plant for a cruiser and what is needed for a Zeppelin, so it could be more or less. My guess is you would use a modified SSN reactor stripped of most of the shielding as a base for the designed, then modified to minimize weight. But you might also try an engine based on decay or short live radioactive elements like Strontium. I am just not sure what they had in mind with the "50 ton" reactor and how much power you really need. I am thinking you have to have 10,000 horsepower or so on the engines plus enough to run a very powerful radar.

A Zeppelin in cost and performance really is an airSHIP, not an airplane. And once satellites exist, there is a cheaper way. To save the Zeppelin, you have to get the R&D costs out of the way and have proven technologies by 1960. And even then, it will fade away over time.


Edit: Probably keep over water mostly, so if crash in deep ocean you just leave it. Purpose: AWAC type ability 10-20 years earlier. Reason to avoid another Pearl Harbor. How much was the budget for the SONUS line or DEW line or the AWAC's we kept over Germany.
 
I'd just like to note, if the Hindenburg somehow still crashed, the high pitched screams of terror would be absolutely hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Top