Nuclear-Powered Drones? Report Suggests Yes, but Here‘s Why They’ve Been Shelved
- Posted on March 23, 2012 at 9:30am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
- Federation of American Scientists say Sandia National Laboratories developed technology that would allow for nuclear-powered UAVs.
- Sandia’s report, written in June 2011, states the tech would ”provide far more surveillance time and intelligence information per mission while reducing the high cost of support activities.”
- Results from Sandia’s research are not being used nor are they being made publicly available.
- ”It was disappointing to all that the political realities would not allow use of the results.”
According to a new report obtained by the Federation of American Scientists, all signs point to a national laboratory developing nuclear technology to power unmanned aerial vehicles, but before the tech could ever be implemented, the results were prevented from being released due to “current political conditions.”
FAS’s Secrecy News blog reports that Sandia National Laboratories was working on developing technology that would “increase UAV sortie duration from days to months while increasing available electrical power at least two-fold.” Gizmodo simplifies this saying it would produce ”ultra-persistent drone flight that didn’t require traditional fuels.”
The report states itself:
As a result of this effort, UAVs were to be able to provide far more surveillance time and intelligence information per mission while reducing the high cost of support activities. This technology was intended to create unmatched global capabilities to observe and preempt terrorist and weapon of mass destruction (WMD) activities.
While the project summary, authored in 2011, does not come out and say “nuclear,” there are several indicators pointing to it, according to sources reviewing the document. FAS has more:
The project summary, which refers to “propulsion and power technologies that [go] well beyond existing hydrocarbon technologies,” does not actually use the word “nuclear.” But with unmistakable references to “safeguards,” “decommissioning and disposal,” and those unfavorable “political conditions,” there is little doubt about the topic under discussion.
Furthermore, the project’s lead investigator at Sandia, the aptly named Dr. Steven B. Dron, is a specialist in nuclear propulsion, among other things. He co-chaired a session at the 2008 Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion at the University of New Mexico.
The Atlantic Wire’s Adam Clark Estes says there are two ways to take in this news:
One, good for the government scientists for deciding not to build a flying, unmanned nuclear power plant. (Bear in mind that we don‘t actually know if they’ve continued work on the project since last June.) Two, let’s make this a teaching moment. Last December when CIA lost a drone over Iran was a teaching moment, too. Just imagine if it had an American-made nuclear reactor inside of it.
Gizmodo also points out the relatively high crash rate for drones that may make nuclear-powered versions a bad idea:
Compared to conventional airplanes, they crash a lot. Rough weather, communications errors, software glitches — sometimes we don’t even know what brings down a drone. But they go down, and because there’s no human inside, it’s never considered much of a loss. They’re (relatively) cheap! They’re (relatively) disposable! But with nuclear fuel inside, they’d be categorically dangerous.
(Related: Another drone goes down raising speculation about drone virus from Sept.)
According to the report, this technology being implemented in the long run is not out of the realm of possibility:
None of the results are currently in use by DOE and it is doubtful that they will be used in the near-term or mid-term future. Currently, none of the results can be shared openly with the public due to national security constraints.
[...]
[Northrop Grumman Corporation Integrated Systems, Unmanned Systems] (NGIS UMS) was quite pleased with the results of analysis and design although it was disappointing to all that the political realities would not allow use of the results.
Do you have any thoughts on this drone technology that never truly made it out of the research stage?
Update: Sandia has said in a statement that the project ended in 2009. A spokesperson for the lab said in an email to the Blaze that Sandia is “often asked to look at a wide range of solutions to the toughest technical challenges.“ This project specifically was ”highly theoretical and very conceptual.“ The results were to test the feasibility of this technology and ”no hardware was ever built or tested.”
Comments (32)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 711 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 563 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 387 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 376 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 364 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 376 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 387 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 315 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 376 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Mr.Fitnah
Posted on March 24, 2012 at 6:18amMuslims and liberal quash micro nuclear power plants in UAVs, cars , towns ,neighborhoods They suck. I dont want drones but small power plants should be privately available..
Report Post »G-WHIZ
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 2:06pmA few “sci-fi” stories have a portable device(of some sorts) powered by nucular-reaction. Now, as of today, even a small 100watt nuke-generator needs several hundred pounds of [led-shielding]. OUR nucular submarines have tons of shielding around the reactor-source plus shielding around the heat-transfer unit to super-heat the water for steem turbune(s) to produce the electricity. Then there is the ultra-accurate systems to control the reaction…BOOM!! . The lack of proper-shielding of the drone will cause radiation propigation, and will irradiate anything close-by… much more than the x-rays from those tsa-scanners, or doctors/nurses doeing thousands of normal x-rays each year(they wear lead-shielded vests during these proceedures). Hmmmmm…can you say…cancer?!
Report Post »ZeitgeistBuster
Posted on March 24, 2012 at 3:12amNo No G-WHIZ,
This is LOW RADIATION stuff they have here.
It is called Direct Electrical Stimulation from emmissions of radiation. Think a type of solar panel, except powered by radioactivity instead of light.
The roadblock has been in developing the materials that can emit electrons with exposure to low level radiation sources, like naturally occurring Uranium, or the radioactive isotopes used in medical procedures. This is definitely NOT a typical “nuclear reactor” of the type we all imagine with lethal highly refined and SUPER RADIOACTIVE materials like Plutonium.
If they have advanced to the point that they can power a drone, then this is exciting news!
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on March 24, 2012 at 8:19pmGood comment zeitgeist.
G-Whiz, I’ll not be taking nuclear energy advice from a person who cannot spell.
Report Post »Libertyrevolutionary
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 1:12pmI’m all for nuclear drones in the Middle East. Not nuclear powered – nuclear tipped!
Report Post »Awakening Day
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 1:23pm“Thou Shalt Not Kill” ~ GOD
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 2:01pmYeah, just what we need. Government drones watching us everyday, recording every minute of our lives. Dismantle the machine before it is too late.
Report Post »BlackCrow
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 1:12pmThis has been on and off since the 50′s. The technology has been developed, shelved, brought back for more research and shelved again many times over the years. It has always been fear of accidental contamination and the publics perception of an accident resulting in another Hiroshima. Well it ain’t gonna blow up and take New York City with it.
Myself If a nuclear decay generator could be made to put out enough power to power a house I would have one in a minute. But then if the neighbors found out they would freak out.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 7:18pmRoger that, Blackcrow. The culmination of the 1950′s technology was the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment and the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor. Objectively speaking, the LFTR is THE solution to energy needs and — if widely deployed by America, Europe and Japan — it would alter the global political picture in our favor like no other technology. Check out http://www.energyfromthorium.com to see how it works — cheap, safe and clean. Gets me kinda “conspiracy” minded when wondering why it was dropped by Nixon.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 12:00pmI don’t care what they use to fuel these things. They have no business spying on the American people. If anything we should be spying on the dolts in Washington. They’re the traitors, not us.
Report Post »republic2011
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 11:09amThis is a recipe for “oops!”
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:19amHow far away are we from making a safe nuclear engine for cars?
Report Post »Apple Bite
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:33amIf they didn’t have to worry about politicians and special interest groups, it could have been sooner than we think.
Report Post »Apple Bite
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:38amhttp://www.ubergizmo.com/2009/01/cadillac-thorium-fuel-powered-concept/
Report Post »jonnyturbo
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:38amPretty far from making enough electricity to power a car. This idea works for things like space probes because they need a little bit of power for a long time. Anything that would be powerful enough to move a standard car would require huge amounts of shielding that would increase the weight of the car to the point that it probably wouldn’t be able to move. A drone using this technology would have to be scaled back in size and capability.
Report Post »capitalismrocks
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:19amIts actually a great implementation and concept…. look at the Voyager spacecraft, they are billions of miles from earth, launched in the mid 70′s and still running strong. This is great technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
Its not like 3-Mile Island would be flying in the air raining plutonium down on the earth below, this is a much safer, smaller and controllable design….
The issue comes with security most likely, you don’t want one of these bad boys to get shot down over Afghanistan and then the bad guys use the reactor with some C4 strapped to it and make a dirty bomb.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:11amOh, so then, if Mitt Romney gets in there then it will be alright to have “Terminator” technology? Hmm, how odd that is.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:17amAnd they need terminator technology why? Because they are not living, and they need that reassurance of life.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:20amOh it’s alright if they look in your house getting into your business, because they won’t misuse it – he‘s a Republican and haven’t you heard….a Mormon.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:25amGo ahead and fly your little model airplanes, knock yourself out, but that isn’t Liberty for all, and neither is it Liberty for the people looking for security – Satan looks for security. Fly your airplanes and watch Jesus Christ knock them all out of the sky.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:35amI’m serious, go ahead, try me. I would have thought by now that you people would have figured out that Jesus is all about Liberty. Why else do you think he taught some but not all? Why else do you think Jesus was called a glutton and a drunk? It’s because he sits back with hands off his children to let them learn, and to drink learning in Liberty.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:37amFly your damn airplanes!
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 10:59amItsjusttim
Jesus came to bridge the gap between the “law” of salvation and God…It’s called choice…salvation. And that was the bigger message. You will be set free from the law of salvation…the Torah establishes the law, and Jesus abolished the law by his life, death and resurrection.
“Tetelestai” = it is finished
Reconcile, render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…render unto God what is God’s
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 11:04amOh and Itsjusttim, the alcohol content of wine was weak sauce back in the day dood…do some research before you post will ya…?
Drunkard…? Glutton? You have no biblical address for that do ya? Bring it! LMAO
Report Post »jonnyturbo
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 9:59amYou couldn’t put a nuclear reactor on a drone. That’s just silly. They are refering to a radioisotope thermoelectric generator. It’s a thermocouple that uses radioactive decay as a heat source. If one crashed it could be used to make a dirty bomb and could make people sick, but that’s about it. They use this technology to power some satelites and deep space probes. It’s not a bad idea, but it would be a mess to clean up if one crashed.
Report Post »James926
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 12:56pmGreat point and it would give our enemies one more thing to use on our country. They used our planes on 911 imagine them downing one of these and poisoning a water supply. Drones have no place on US soil anyways. The only reason I can think of to have a nuclear powered drone is so you can leave it up indefinitely, which means constant 24 hour surveillance.
Report Post »martinez012577
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 9:56amWhen the economy collapses, they will be used against the American people. Same has the dumb report about the heat beam being used against pirates, when you know damn well they made that for the coming riots.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/us-militarys-latest-weapon-a-futuristic-heat-ray/
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 9:55amSo the question is this: How long until such a drone flies over a US city with a live nuclear device and sends the city and its people into annhilation? I can imagine Obama has already given the technology to the Chinese, Iran and Russia.
Report Post »stinkybisquit
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 9:53amNuclear engines for Air Force One were developed long ago, but one of the reasons they weren’t pursued: if it crashes, you’ve got nuclear material going everywhere.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 9:45amI am all for drones as long as someone sets up common sense rules about not using them on the american people and makes sure that the computer that is flying them around cannot be hacked. so I guess that means I am against drones since they are using them on US soil instead of to just patroling war zones and the border and we are hacked every day by russia and the chinese.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 9:53amthat pretty much sums it up.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on March 23, 2012 at 9:45amHow long will it take Iran to hack one of those and bring it in to nice smooth landing in Tehran?
Report Post »