5 ms·

> U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fusion reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle. sigh To

• golemotron 12y ago
  I cringed when I saw that line too.
• aqme28 12y ago
  Looks like they issued the correction > U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers run on nuclear power, but they have large fission reactors on board that have to be replaced on a regular cycle.
  • Zigurd 12y ago
    If by "large" they mean "very small" then, yeah.
  • mpyne 12y ago
    Even the need for regular replacement went away long ago. Our current (old) designs get refueled only once, and new ships don't get refueled at all (the core lasts as long as the hull does). They do all need regular maintenance, but that's true for all U.S. warships.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• dyeje 12y ago
  I believe you're misunderstanding, those ships run on power generated by a nuclear reactor. A reactor is like when you think of a regular nuclear power plant, it's not part of a missile.
  • privong 12y ago
    I think they understand; they were joking that the only things on the ship which involve fusion are the nuclear warheads.
  • wlesieutre 12y ago
    You're right, but it was a joke pointing out an error in the article. They originally said the carriers run on fusion reactors, but it's been fixed.
• delinka 12y ago
  Unless I'm missing something, I think you're making a similar mistake. Submarines and carriers run on a fission reactor. And it powers everything - drives turbines for locomotion, electricity...
  • sipior 12y ago
    At the risk of speaking for the parent, I believe their point was that the only fusion "reactors" on a nuclear submarine are the warheads it carries.
  • mikeash 12y ago
    He's making a joke about how fusion has been used successfully for decades, but only for bombs. Thus, aircraft carriers and submarines do have fusion devices on board, but they're only used for destructive purposes.
  • etiam 12y ago
    Maybe you're just less bothered than I about the writer conflating fission and fusion when the difference between them makes for a good deal of the newsworthiness of the article. I'm well aware of the fission reactors in large military ships, but if there is any application of nuclear fusion on them then pretty much the only option today is thermonuclear warheads. It would be really nice if that's about to change.
    • twistedpair 12y ago
      Most warheads have hollow plutonium pits that are filled with tritium (right before implosion) triggering a fusion reaction from the high heat of the plutonium fission reaction. So no, it's not only the H-Bombs, though those are primarily fusion while tritium is only used to "boost" classic implosion fission warheads.
• raverbashing 12y ago
  From what I've heard, the reactor actually outlives the ship, no?
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    • DennisP 12y ago
      Civilian power reactors need refueling at about that pace, but Nimitz-class carriers "are capable of operating continuously for over 20 years without refueling" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#Propulsion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#P...
    • hamiltonkibbe 12y ago
      25 years for current aircraft carriers [1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refueling_and_Overhaul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refueling_and_Overhaul
  • wolf550e 12y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors#mediaviewer/File:Naval_Reactor_Compartment_Packages_in_Trench_94_at_Hanford,_WA.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors#m...
• JustSomeNobody 12y ago
  Must be early. A few people didn't get your joke/sarcasm.