6 ms·

I know this would never happen but it would be so so cool if Disney used this authority to become an early sponsor / adopter of fusion power once that is availa

I know this would never happen but it would be so so cool if Disney used this authority to become an early sponsor / adopter of fusion power once that is available. (See e.g. Commonwealth Fusion Systems [1]). In the meantime they could put a simple but futuristic demonstration like a fusor [2] in Tomorrowland, and jazz it up with lasers and smoke machines. I know none of this will happen but a person can dream. It would also be incredible if Tomorrowland would bring back jetpacks like they demoed once in the 60's [3]. Tomorrowland could again be what Walt hoped it would be - a place of inspiration and dreams of a better tomorrow. [1] https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major-advance-toward-fusion-energy-0908 https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major-advance-toward-fusio... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyvN3rF3mUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyvN3rF3mUM

dTal 5y ago
Radiation sources as child entertainment, what could possibly go wrong? I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool, but doing things "for real" isn't really the Disney way. Why bother with a real fusor when you probably make a perfect visual simulacrum with some fiber optics? Then you don't have to worry about stray neutrons, induced radioactivity, X-Ray leakage, etc...
- upwardbound 5y ago
  Yeah, that's true. I know you're right it's just a bummer. Doing it for real doesn't make sense in the context of today's real-world constraints - it would just be a symbolic move in the sense that in a true "world of tomorrow" fusion reactors would be commonplace, and there'd be no reason not to have one. Like the fusion reactor on the DeLorean in Back to the Future II - just an ordinary piece of future life, no more remarkable than a car or a refrigerator. I think your (quite valid) perspective reflects the difference of the view on risk in Walt's day vs today. When he was setting the vision it was considered worth the risk to fly a real jetpack over the park. Today it's "too risky" even though actual jetpacks are much safer than they used to be.

dTal 5y ago

Radiation sources as child entertainment, what could possibly go wrong? I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool, but doing things "for real" isn't really the Disney way. Why bother with a real fusor when you probably make a perfect visual simulacrum with some fiber optics? Then you don't have to worry about stray neutrons, induced radioactivity, X-Ray leakage, etc...

upwardbound 5y ago
Yeah, that's true. I know you're right it's just a bummer. Doing it for real doesn't make sense in the context of today's real-world constraints - it would just be a symbolic move in the sense that in a true "world of tomorrow" fusion reactors would be commonplace, and there'd be no reason not to have one. Like the fusion reactor on the DeLorean in Back to the Future II - just an ordinary piece of future life, no more remarkable than a car or a refrigerator. I think your (quite valid) perspective reflects the difference of the view on risk in Walt's day vs today. When he was setting the vision it was considered worth the risk to fly a real jetpack over the park. Today it's "too risky" even though actual jetpacks are much safer than they used to be.