The American Flying City - Forgotten Atoms For Peace Airship 

Future video about the F-22 Raptor?

Penguins are cool

True

Bro please make a video about Tu-160

Thank you Found and Explained! For anyone interested, check out the link above and let us know if you have any questions.

"Atoms for Peace" was actually an entire project/PR campaign (look up operation candor for fun info) back in the cold war for the usage of nuclear science in civilian applications;It isn't referring to just this thing

A mini Columbia hahaha

They did make the NS Savannah, a nuclear powered cargo/cruise ship.

Nah man, it's the Pridwyn

The thumbnail made me think of an anime or game.

Love that

Or as Castle Wulfenbach in the long-running steampunk comic series "Girl Genius".

Or a Jules Verne novel. The entire thing is very steam punk.

@@fredbloggs8072 more like atompunk

​I actually genuinely agree with you😂😂❤❤ ​@@jackychan9236

I remember that. This channel and Mustard did videos on the Savannah as well ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cYj4F_cyiJI.html Given the number of past airship accidents, it's probably best that nuclear reactors weren't used in the sky. I mean, a flying aircraft carrier sounded awesome too.

@@Phrancis5 Probably not very efficient in weight as well. Nuclear reactors are HEAVY, and airships are infamously known for lacking the ability to carry large loads. Hell, the Hindenburg’s max payload with cargo, crew, living facilities, and passengers can probably be matched with a C-5 Galaxy.

They also learnt a lot from the NS Savannah that would have been very relevant to a nuclear airship. Stuff like learning which rubber seals go hard or break down under radiation. The materials issues for a nuclear airship are oft overlooked, but tricky to solve

@@robertoroberto9798 beaten by the C5 actually. BY A LONG SHOT! Everything on an AIRSHIP was super thin, and lightweight, because it can't carry anything. It can carry a max payload of 21K lbs.. a C5 Galaxy can carry 6x that amount.

@@demcomp No, I mean the crew facilities and the bedding as well. We’re comparing a plane that can carry way more cargo at the cost of less facilities for passengers to enjoy, to an airship which carries way less cargo because most of it was spent on passenger comfort like a bar, smoking room, etc.

Thank you.

After I make my comment, of course I find this. Thank you. These kids would really be confused, if we were mentioned Zeppelin's latest airships. Those are not blimps either. :)

You are most certainly correct a blimp is classified as a non-rigid airship, while the Zeppelin type AIRSHIP is a rigid airship with an aluminum (duralumin) the shape and structure of the airship. How are blimps, and Zeppelin type of ships are both considered dirigibles, and or airships!

Well said!

@@diggingattycho7908 It's not a balloon, it's an airship! If you want to play with balloons, get outside!

When they future was actually the future and not some corporate technocracy BS pandering to overgrown mental infant fads.

To quote Pro. Farnsworth (from Futurama): "A man can dream"

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride nuclear airships.

So Fallout in a way?

We can do both. People have already long since figured out how to harness fission effectively and dispose of the byproducts safely and securely. The bottom line is that there’s just way too much money left in hydrocarbons, so nuclear power is regulated so heavily that it’s financially impractical to build or maintain. We’ve been living in the past since the 1970s because of greed and unwillingness to move forward towards a better future in the realm of power generation.

@@OneBiasedOpinion Well, to be fair, (although I'm a fan of nuclear power, and think we should have embraced the technology and run with it), there have been some spectacular disasters, not helped by the arrogance and condescension of the atomic community towards reasonable questions about safety, then when there's a disaster, they don't seem to know what to do. Cockcroft's folly springs to mind.

I'm in chemistry bro

I'm in art

In chemistry

Geography

Same

For a man that created excellent visuals he spends zero time researching the pronunciation of some names/words.

DONT TEMPT ME FRODO!

Could be an issue with licencing. Don't really know how it works, but maybe the companies that designed the vehicles could have an issue with them selling their designs

True, but it’s those projects that lead to progress and technological advancement.

@@stinkymccheese8010 unfortunately, real technological advancement is also known as "repeated failure" and is therefore politically unfavorable.

The Horten brothers built their first flying wings ("B2's") from wood and canvas

Source: trust me bro.

Airship crashes are relatively low forces. It was calculated to be very easy to make reactors safe for airship crashes.

@@matthiuskoenig3378 will not call 150 km/h low force, but is better than 600+ km/h as slower jets fly.

I would love to read when done! Do you have a specific platform?

@@Victor_._. Sorry, no. I'm doing it on my computer. It's a steampunk/alternate history novel. But the "Atoms for Peace Airship" has inspired a luxury French airline, a flying symbol of national pride.

What did airships in was advancements in aircraft design. By 1938 airships were obsolete for passenger service. Aircraft could do it cheaper and faster.

@@jamesricker3997 That's true. Airships weren't as as quick and cheap as airplanes, but I still think there could've been a way maybe further down the line where the industry could've achieved that with airships. They definitely could today. Maybe not cheaper, but the experience of air travel would be much more comfortable.

What I'm asking is: Is an airship worth it energy efficiency wise? Since airships don't need fuel to generate lift, would they be feasible for cheap cargo transportation in areas with low infrastructure or difficult geography? Like for providing help in an area after an earth quake or serving as mountain ambulance and such for example

Airships suffer terribly in bad weather, they are literally death traps in a storm. Sure they are majestic and there is romance to them but they really are a dead-end for all but the most niche use cases.

Also to consider is that you're talking about a ship the size of Titanic, that can maybe heft 50-70 people, plus baggage and food/water supplies...vs the *thousands* of a regular ship.

On other worlds, land ships and airships would likely be the norm, even compared to traditional cities.

Supersonic aircraft would be really popular too

Gravity would increase and make airships even less economical. Planes would still rule the sky.

​@@robertoroberto9798dont even go there, gravity wouldn't allow anything at all , also the airship would be way way better than an airplane in that situation

​@@robertoroberto9798dont even go there, gravity wouldn't allow anything at all , also the airship would be way way better than an airplane in that situation

Yea my first thought was along the lines of oh ffs this was when the genius collective thought airbreather reactors were a thing lol.

Thank you! Cheers!

It was supposed to show off nuclear nations to non-nuclear nations

Reminds me of one that went up in flames. ;)

It's only peace of America forces it down your throat.

I've been looking for this comment the moment i saw the thumbnail lol

You'd be surprised. Airships are actually extremely safe contrary to popular belief, and even when hey crash it is at relatively slow speeds. It was considered by nuclear engineers to be easier to make an airship reactor safe than a conventional ship reactor (actually built and in use).

It would be huge, but wouldn’t actually require that much material. Most of the inside of a balloon is gas so wouldn’t be super heavy

@@FoundAndExplained Thank you very much for answering, the anime is called Ultimate hellsing, you can look for the scene where the Zeppelin appears as (Hellsing Ultimate - London assault (sub esp)), it is a very good anime and very gore. PDST: They also destroy London, the revenge of any Argentine (including me) xdxd. Greetings and good luck to you!!!.

probably the entire history of Dirigibles as use for warfare, there were A LOT of crazy designs, from untouchable (at the time) bombers to aircraft carriers

love you always

Love your "photography" about Aircrafts! ❤

@@FoundAndExplained likewise, thank you for your friendship!

peace through superior flying mass

That's funny!

Uhhh...look up. A hundred miles probably one above you now. It's jimmy page or Will Smith! Gotta wonder. They got the $$$

I agree with you there I do their that the airship has never fully implemented or utilized and find that to be one of the sad things about the modern world. We still live ina coal/diesel run world even though we are technically in the atomic age but have done very little in the field to advance or even implement it technology

Remember seeing other videos saying the airship like the ocean liner was abandoned not due to safety but due to the introduction of jet travel making both no longer financially viable. The ocean liner did at least get reinvented as the cruise ship.

While I agree that this thing wouldn’t have worked as advertised, I do think something could have been made to work, until it crashed in some high winds . The gewgaws would have been dropped in design 1.1, nothing on winches, no helipad ( there is actually an Arthur C Clarke story that starts with a drone hitting what is essentially a fictional version of this thing, in the real world there would be a no fly zone around it ) , no sea landing . The lift thing was probably manageable with balonets ( balloons that could be filled with air within the gas envelope that could be blown up to decrease the lift of the zeppelin ) and possibly using the reactor heat as an additional source of lift as required . The specific strength of titanium and aluminium alloys seem to overlap at all but the most extreme values so going with something as rare and hard to work as titanium seems work for the sake of it, so that would probably be dropped as well. So a nuclear electric zeppelin using a small reactor out of a nuclear submarine might be feasible, until the first wind shear it encountered drives it into the ground.

He makes them

No, we the United States Would not sell helium to the Germans. The Hindenburg was designed to be flown with helium as opposed to hydrogen and secretary Ickes the head of the interior department department was afraid Germany would use a helium for military purposes, so we would not sell them HELIUM for the Hindenburg so they had to go to hydrogen more lift, but can be a lot more dangerous

Im sure they knew about it

"Master of the World", though that machine was held up by lots of propellors.

I think that if you build them with 2023 technology that will change I mean alot of happend since the Hindenburg disaster

@@Groza_Dallocort physics don't change tho, sure modern computer systems can help, but it's still way too much of a risk to strap a nuclear reactor onto it.

@@justalex4214 depends on what kind of nuclear reactor. Some of the SMRs that use molten metal as a collant dont have the capability to meltdown like Chernobyl and Fukushima