Could a tank or land vehicle be nuclear powered?

[Penguin]

Soviet mobile nuclear plants:

More at: Russian Mobile Nuclear Power Plants | English Russia

Very little is known about this thing.

Is it possible to make a nuclear tank today? Even if it'd be technically possible, but it would be very expensive and potentially dangerous.

Oh well, we already use DU rounds

Ah, TEhS-3! With a similar plant, a tank would look like:

Source = ''R. P. Hunnicutt''. Firepower. A History of the American Heavy Tank. — Presidio Press, 1988. — ISBN 0-89141-30

 

[blackops]

There were a few reserches on nuclear powerd tanks in both us and the then soviet union

Well on the topic here is a link to the same discussion on a physics forum

Could a tank or land vehicle be nuclear powered? [Archive] - Physics Forums

 

[yyetttt]

Same concept as your Can run a town off electricity from a nuclear powered submarine on town, similarly we can use this nuclear vehicle in space(moon) for electricity and other power projects on small area , Just think if this small nuclear vehicle is used at moon. How long it would enhance stay there. And then they will find more water at moon like this

But if this small Nuclear vehicle get blast on moon , then............................

Now back to earth.
Nuclear powered vehicle can move in mobile areas easily, and can be used for multiple purpose.Electricity on small towns
If you are War mad, once crossed the border, it will be on God Mercy, despite if destroyed by enemy,still there will be huge after
math.
Same nuclear Vehicle can be used both as ship or road vehicle.....................
Big advantage, It is mobile..... It Can move any place

You would be a very bad astronaut, sir. There is no water on the moon. Only some necessary elements.

---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 PM ----------

Sorry for the post.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Go green! Use electric tanks! Save the environment!

 

[Chogy]

I dont think its feasible

Nuclear rectors do not produce enough energy in a specific period of time to be an alternative to any other combustion based fuel.
THo they can be used as charging units to charge electric cars---->and tht again leads to the question,

Y the hell we need it in a car when we can get the same nuclear energy via a nuclear plant 1000 miles away...just by connecting a power cable to an outlet?

There are better option like hydrogen fuel cells tht are almost perpetual in theory.

This is, I think, the correct answer. The problem with nuclear-powered small vehicles is wattage over time. Small vehicles like a car need a higher power output over shorter periods of time to be practical, and a reactor small enough to fit in the vehicle isn't going to have the necessary HP. Now, you could have a simple nuclear battery that trickles out 50 watts, and that 50 watts is continually fed into rechargeable lithium-ion cells, and THOSE are used for actual movement. I think that would work.

A nuclear submarine or ship can do it because they have the physical space for the huge reactor needed, and all the shielding.

The Nuclear B-36 in the USA is well known. It never flew, but what some don't realize is that GE was successful in making a 20,000 pound thrust class nuclear jet engine that would have worked. It ran on the ground with complete success. Amazingly, it worked by simply replacing the combustion cans inside the engine, normally sprayed with jet fuel, with heat exchangers that used heat from fission. These cans glowed white hot. The compressed air hits the cans, expands, and drives the power turbine. So they had a 20,000 pound thrust jet that could run for months, apparently.

Unfortunately it was horribly dirty and spewed radiation.

 

[Pioneerfirst]

will be dangerous,i think can not be used a large scale due to security concerns.
may be used for military purpose,again dangerous if hit in war zone.

 

[Safriz]

Drive this car on the roads and where ever you go .. the next day people will be glowing in the dark.

 

[airuah]

if it is actualluy possible, then all that the enemy has to do is destroy one tank, the area surrounding the tank would be affected by the nuke fall out and the war is over for the country that built the tank......simple common sense tells you that

 

[Zabaniyah]

Nuclear powered jet engine:

Concept of nuclear powered bomber:

The Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program researched and developed two main systems of nuclear powered jet engines. The Direct Air Cycle program was the first of these. Developed by General Electric, this facet of the program was based in Evendale, Ohio. The Direct Air Cycle program was popular because it was simple, reliable and suitable and the engines were able to start quickly. It worked by letting compressed air run through the reactor of a conventional jet engine where it could be heated before being exhausted through the turbine. The X-39 engine was produced by this program and it proved to be highly successful with several upgrades made to the system at later stages. The final HTRE-3 would have most likely been used to power the X-6 nuclear propulsion aircraft if the project hadn’t been scrapped.

Note: I don't own any of these photos.

 

[Aurangzeb Baloch]

Well I did some research and I found it is possible to build a small nuclear reactor. We in whole have witnessed an dramatic change in advancement of sciences like room sized computers transformed into hand held PDAs or bulky television into a pocket player. So in a broader sense it is possible. Who knows our army has it

 

[Sinnerman108]

Well I did some research and I found it is possible to build a small nuclear reactor. We in whole have witnessed an dramatic change in advancement of sciences like room sized computers transformed into hand held PDAs or bulky television into a pocket player. So in a broader sense it is possible. Who knows our army has it

The smallest of those reactors are not small enough.
It is too dangerous and too costly.

When you want a tank force for 5000+ tanks, there better not be 5000 little nuclear reactors in them.

 

[Alpery]

nuclear reactors are not economic and dangerous..
nuclear batteries are possible

 

[saiyan0321]

ok here it is you have 3000 tank force advancing against the enemy amongst them one is a nuclear missile with a reacter what happens if some lucky soldier or a tank hits the nuclear tank and it causes a melt down or the missile is damaged then BOOM there goes the fantastic army with top nuclear tank

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Nuclear power space craft makes sense

Tanks and small vehicles no , not really

 

[monitor]

Whether a Tank or other military vehicle be nuclear power or not it will be very dangerous for us as there will be constant fear of attack from enemy and thus will emit nuclear dust all around .

If we can produce small reactor like home generator for power generation which will emit little radiation in future that can solve our power crisis for our future generation . that will be the best use of this power.