4 ms·

I'll just leave this here (mentioned in the middle of a list in the article): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L

I'll just leave this here (mentioned in the middle of a list in the article): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy ------ EDIT: I'm surprised at the downvote. Anyway I'll explain my thinking for sharing that link. I was surprised at the importance of being "container-sized" size since within limits who cares how big a fusion reactor's building is. On land. In the sea or air is a different matter - and when you see the word "Lockheed Martin" most people do think of planes. This is mentioned in the article, in this sentence: >According to the company website on the CFR, the reactor could be powerful enough to run an aircraft carrier, power a plane the size of a C-5 Galaxy airlifter, provide electricity to cities with anywhere from 50 to 100,000 people, and maybe even speed up a trip to Mars. So Lockheed Martin already has planes of a large enough size that such a power plant could make sense. That's pretty amazing if you imagine it. I mean, nuclear submarines already have reactors - why not a plane? A quick google "airplane nuclear reactor" returns: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft and * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion but no practical models. (The first of these two links starts with the words "A nuclear-powered aircraft is a concept for an aircraft intended to be powered by nuclear energy." and goes on to say none have been produced.) So if Lockheed Martin already makes planes that big, then it might be natural and amazing for them to explore containerization of the power plant for that reason. After all, what other space or size/weight constraints are there for nuclear power plants? Where else does it bother anyone whether it's container-size or the size of a two or three or six story building? So, this is the reason for my leaving the link to the specific airplane mentioned in the article.

tzahola 9y ago
Ok, but why?
- logicallee 9y ago
  Why did I mention it? Well, I thought that it's obvious. Look, fuel costs are extreme, I did a quick Google search and got for example: >"For the airline I work for that would mean that an oversimplified average flight's fuel cost is about 40 percent of the overall cost. It's the single most important cost."[1] Almost nothing is as power-dense as a nuclear reactor's core, but you would need an absolutely massive plane before you could see the economy of scale to use it. Unless someone got it down to a manageable size - say, container size. And had a large enough plane to place it on. If you read the article I linked (again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy ) it actually would benefit immediately from a kind of power plant that didn't have to store such huge fuel weight. It says: "We started to build the C-5 and wanted to build the biggest thing we could..." I am not saying it would go in a C-5, only that this company has experience building absolutely huuuuuge planes. And the data sheet gives you tantalizing visions for the future. (Well, it gives me tantalizing visions for the future.) This is how the jet fuel economy works on the C-5 currently: ""After being one of the worst-run programs, ever, in its early years, it has evolved very slowly and with great difficulty into a nearly adequate strategic airlifter that unfortunately needs in-flight refueling or a ground stop for even the most routine long-distance flights." So you see, at the moment it's a huge gigantic plane that Lockheed Martin has huge experience with, and needs to refuel mid-flight for even routine long-distance flights. It also has a payload of 270,000 lbs (120 imperial tons.) That's not counting the 51,150 gallons of fuel capacity. Do you think that would carry a container? We are looking at the kind of thing (or maybe a somewhat larger version) that might actually be able to use an on-board nuclear power-plant. Again: where else on Earth would anyone need a container-sized nuclear power plant? (Genuinely.) So I'm just connecting the dots here. By the way, just for your information, do you know what percent of all human carbon dioxide emissions are caused by plane travel? Google says: "In 2013, aircraft were responsible for about 3 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and nearly 9 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. transportation sector. " [2] Sticking a container-size nuclear power plant into a plane of that size, yeah, with lots of parachutes or safety mechanisms, would be amazing. Above a certain size, the plane would not have to be spending its energy, on carrying its energy (fuel.) I can see that this is a visionary far-out ideal. Maybe they're afraid to bill it as such directly. But then: what other use is there on Earth for a container-sized nuclear power plant? (Besides a ship or submarine.) The air (or space) is the only place with such ridiculous constraints. And anyway I didn't come up with this "vision", the article literally mentioned it explicitly. I just supplied a link to it so you everyone could read through the article and data sheet for themselves. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-does-fuel-cost-take-out-of-the-total-cost-for-a-single-airline-flight https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-does-fuel-cost-take-ou... [2] https://www.c2es.org/content/reducing-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-aircraft/ https://www.c2es.org/content/reducing-carbon-dioxide-emissio...
- adventured 9y ago
  I doubt fusion power plants in a plane is something worth considering much in the next 30 years at a minimum. That said - it'd be for power plants that can be flown around the world and utilized on the ground once landed, as a large recharging supply source for the future in which a lot of military hardware use batteries. Or for powering large aircraft that can stay aloft for very long durations and are armed with high powered solid state lasers used to shoot down objects. Or alternatively used for AWACS. Can you fit a fusion power plant in a large cargo plane along with the tech necessary for a large solid state laser? I can't imagine, maybe as they both miniaturized over decades, but this is all just fantastic as a premise.
  - logicallee 9y ago
    The article says >If this project has been progressing on schedule, the company could debut a prototype system that size of shipping container, but capable of powering a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier or 80,000 homes, sometime in the next year or so. I feel completely justified in my pointing out the consequences of that statement. Based on your reply, it might as well have said, "at this rate by the time someone born today is in college, their watches will have six or eight fusion reactors each, depending on whether they are also using it for personal trasportation." In other words, pixie dust. Don't blame me for having reading comprehension :)
perl4ever 9y ago
The problem with the fission powered aircraft was the weight of the shielding to protect the pilot. My dad worked on the project, although I never talked to him about it.

tzahola 9y ago

Ok, but why?

logicallee 9y ago
Why did I mention it? Well, I thought that it's obvious. Look, fuel costs are extreme, I did a quick Google search and got for example: >"For the airline I work for that would mean that an oversimplified average flight's fuel cost is about 40 percent of the overall cost. It's the single most important cost."[1] Almost nothing is as power-dense as a nuclear reactor's core, but you would need an absolutely massive plane before you could see the economy of scale to use it. Unless someone got it down to a manageable size - say, container size. And had a large enough plane to place it on. If you read the article I linked (again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy ) it actually would benefit immediately from a kind of power plant that didn't have to store such huge fuel weight. It says: "We started to build the C-5 and wanted to build the biggest thing we could..." I am not saying it would go in a C-5, only that this company has experience building absolutely huuuuuge planes. And the data sheet gives you tantalizing visions for the future. (Well, it gives me tantalizing visions for the future.) This is how the jet fuel economy works on the C-5 currently: ""After being one of the worst-run programs, ever, in its early years, it has evolved very slowly and with great difficulty into a nearly adequate strategic airlifter that unfortunately needs in-flight refueling or a ground stop for even the most routine long-distance flights." So you see, at the moment it's a huge gigantic plane that Lockheed Martin has huge experience with, and needs to refuel mid-flight for even routine long-distance flights. It also has a payload of 270,000 lbs (120 imperial tons.) That's not counting the 51,150 gallons of fuel capacity. Do you think that would carry a container? We are looking at the kind of thing (or maybe a somewhat larger version) that might actually be able to use an on-board nuclear power-plant. Again: where else on Earth would anyone need a container-sized nuclear power plant? (Genuinely.) So I'm just connecting the dots here. By the way, just for your information, do you know what percent of all human carbon dioxide emissions are caused by plane travel? Google says: "In 2013, aircraft were responsible for about 3 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and nearly 9 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. transportation sector. " [2] Sticking a container-size nuclear power plant into a plane of that size, yeah, with lots of parachutes or safety mechanisms, would be amazing. Above a certain size, the plane would not have to be spending its energy, on carrying its energy (fuel.) I can see that this is a visionary far-out ideal. Maybe they're afraid to bill it as such directly. But then: what other use is there on Earth for a container-sized nuclear power plant? (Besides a ship or submarine.) The air (or space) is the only place with such ridiculous constraints. And anyway I didn't come up with this "vision", the article literally mentioned it explicitly. I just supplied a link to it so you everyone could read through the article and data sheet for themselves. [1] https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-does-fuel-cost-take-out-of-the-total-cost-for-a-single-airline-flight https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-does-fuel-cost-take-ou... [2] https://www.c2es.org/content/reducing-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-aircraft/ https://www.c2es.org/content/reducing-carbon-dioxide-emissio...
adventured 9y ago
I doubt fusion power plants in a plane is something worth considering much in the next 30 years at a minimum. That said - it'd be for power plants that can be flown around the world and utilized on the ground once landed, as a large recharging supply source for the future in which a lot of military hardware use batteries. Or for powering large aircraft that can stay aloft for very long durations and are armed with high powered solid state lasers used to shoot down objects. Or alternatively used for AWACS. Can you fit a fusion power plant in a large cargo plane along with the tech necessary for a large solid state laser? I can't imagine, maybe as they both miniaturized over decades, but this is all just fantastic as a premise.
- logicallee 9y ago
  The article says >If this project has been progressing on schedule, the company could debut a prototype system that size of shipping container, but capable of powering a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier or 80,000 homes, sometime in the next year or so. I feel completely justified in my pointing out the consequences of that statement. Based on your reply, it might as well have said, "at this rate by the time someone born today is in college, their watches will have six or eight fusion reactors each, depending on whether they are also using it for personal trasportation." In other words, pixie dust. Don't blame me for having reading comprehension :)

perl4ever 9y ago

The problem with the fission powered aircraft was the weight of the shielding to protect the pilot. My dad worked on the project, although I never talked to him about it.