# Lockheed says makes breakthrough on fusion energy project



## Sasqui (Oct 15, 2014)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/lockheed-fusion-idUSL2N0SA04D20141015

"Oct 15 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready in a decade.

Tom McGuire, who heads the project, said he and a small team had been working on fusion energy at Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works for about four years, but were now going public to find potential partners in industry and government for their work."

Short on details, damnit!  ... and I was hoping it'd be some kid in his garage.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 15, 2014)

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details



> To understand the breakthroughs of the Lockheed concept, it is useful to know how fusion works and how methods for controlling the reaction have a fundamental impact on both the amount of energy produced and the scale of the reactor. Fusion fuel, made up of hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, starts as a gas injected into an evacuated containment vessel. Energy is added, usually by radio-frequency heating, and the gas breaks into ions and electrons, forming plasma.
> 
> The superhot plasma is controlled by strong magnetic fields that prevent it from touching the sides of the vessel and, if the confinement is sufficiently constrained, the ions overcome their mutual repulsion, collide and fuse. The process creates helium-4, freeing neutrons that carry the released energy kinetically through the confining magnetic fields. These neutrons heat the reactor wall which, through conventional heat exchangers, can then be used to drive turbine generators.


----------



## erocker (Oct 15, 2014)

Am I mistaken or didn't some Russian fellow just claim the same thing a week or two ago?


----------



## twilyth (Oct 15, 2014)

There was a post over on WCG about LENR type fusion - low energy nuclear reaction.  They say that they had the output of their E-cat rig validated by independent parties but this has gone nowhere in the past.  No one in the physics community seems to think this is possible but given how little we know about quantum chromodynamics, it might not be a good idea to count them out just yet if they really do have independent verification.


http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline


----------



## Frick (Oct 15, 2014)

Is it more exciting because it Lockheed? I have no idea what they track record looks like, but I assume it's more interesting because it's them and not some random canadian saying he built it in his shed.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 15, 2014)

I think it's much more exciting.  This would be true, classical fusion in a plasma which is the direction fusion research has traditionally taken.  Projects like the National Ignition Facility have taken a slightly different approach in terms of the logistics.  Rather than try to confine the plasma with magnetic fields and generate a continuous fusion reaction like with the old Tokamaks, they use an array of lasers to compress a fuel pellet.  And they have had some success with that.  I thing they reached breakeven energy output earlier this year or last.  But continuous fusion from a reactor has traditionally been the primary goal.  This seems to achieve that.

Magnetic containment has always been the key though.  If they have cracked that with this new machine and it is indeed something that can be made compact, this will mark a huge milestone in human history not to mention the fact that it will give us essentially free energy.


----------



## erocker (Oct 15, 2014)

Frick said:


> Is it more exciting because it Lockheed? I have no idea what they track record looks like, but I assume it's more interesting because it's them and not some random canadian saying he built it in his shed.


Lockheed is huge.


----------



## Nordic (Oct 15, 2014)

twilyth said:


> If they have cracked that with this new machine and it is indeed something that can be made compact, this will mark a huge milestone in human history not to mention the fact that it will give us essentially free energy.


Free energy? That alone makes me skeptical


----------



## twilyth (Oct 15, 2014)

james888 said:


> Free energy? That alone makes me skeptical


It's not technically free.  You still need to isolate or created deuterium and tritium that used in creating the plasma.  But I think there is enough heavy water (deuterium oxide) just in the great lakes to power the US for thousands of years.  So it's a little like burning water to create energy.

The problem with plasma type fusion has always been the fact that you had to spend so much energy generating the containment field that you could never break even let alone get a positive energy output.  Plus, the previous types of containments like the torus of a tokamak were always too unstable to guaranteed containment over any significant amount of time.  Also they didn't do a great job of compressing the plasma.

But the idea that fusion would provide free energy has always been the whole point of pursuing it.  You're probably thinking of 'free energy' in the context of perpetual motion devices.  Those have always been bogus devices - using the zero point field to extract energy from the vacuum and things like that.  In this context, free energy is a completely different concept.


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 15, 2014)

Absolutely Amazing. In a previous life, I was qualified to operate a "Nucular" reactor  , and the search for a sustainable Fusion Reaction was, at that time, a pipe dream. The fact that someone, especially the size of Lockheed, has come out with this feasible project.... It's so far from a reality in my head that I kept checking to see if I was reading an April Fools page....


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 15, 2014)

Ahhzz said:


> Absolutely Amazing. In a previous life, I was qualified to operate a "Nucular" reactor  , and the search for a sustainable Fusion Reaction was, at that time, a pipe dream. The fact that someone, especially the size of Lockheed, has come out with this feasible project.... It's so far from a reality in my head that I kept checking to see if I was reading an April Fools page....



The tabletop fusion announced in the 1980's caused quite a craze till it was de-bunked.  From what I read, the palladium used was saturated with hydrogen atoms (an interesting property of palladium is the ability to absorb A LOT of hydrogen).  The exothermic reaction that was occurring was simply hydrogen being released and reacting with free oxygen in the air.

Now this appears completely different, but what many have tried to accomplish before.  That is starting and containing a sustained fusion reaction to harvest energy from a matter to energy conversion.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 15, 2014)

FINALLY!  Some one is serious about fusion!  This news made my day.  I'm sad it is a private company and not something that will be public domain but better late than never.  The world desperately needs fusion power.




Frick said:


> Is it more exciting because it Lockheed? I have no idea what they track record looks like, but I assume it's more interesting because it's them and not some random canadian saying he built it in his shed.


Lockheed practically invented stealth technology and also holds the official record for worlds fastest manned aircraft with the SR-71.  Skunk Works is famous for making the impossible possible.

I wonder if Lockheed funded this project out of pocket or if it was a black budget item.

I hope they have a working prototype but Lockheed wouldn't go public about it if they didn't know if it would work.


----------



## Nordic (Oct 15, 2014)

I was speaking in a perpetual motion sense but free and or obscenely cheap energy still makes me skeptical. The name Lockheed holds a lot of weight though.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 15, 2014)

Besides hydro, nuclear fission is the cheapest energy source per gigawatt/hr.  Nuclear fusion is safe (no radiation, no meltdown) and fusible materials are practically endless in supply.  It is not free (nothing is) but compared to current sources of electricity/heat, it is undeniably the cheapest and safest.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 15, 2014)

Uh oh, I don't like this quote:


			
				Reuters said:
			
		

> *If it proves feasible*, Lockheed's work would mark a key breakthrough in a field that scientists have long eyed as promising, but which has not yet yielded viable power systems.


How certain is Lockheed this will even work?  Is that Reuters' words or Lockheed's?  This hints that Lockheed is pretty certain:


			
				Reuters said:
			
		

> Lockheed said it had shown it could complete a design, build and test it in as little as a year, which should produce an operational reactor in 10 years...


Also, another typo here:


			
				Reuters said:
			
		

> 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.


Edit: Huh, this is odd.  This link (acquired via Google) doesn't have that typo:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015


----------



## HammerON (Oct 16, 2014)

This would be awesome if they succeed!


----------



## 64K (Oct 16, 2014)

I had no idea that we were so close to fusion reactors. One reason for lack of details right now might be because Lockheed doesn't want another corporation to have the advantage of their research and possibly beat LM to the invention. I imagine the profit from selling fusion reactors and the royalties from licensing would be enormous. Also I find it hard to believe that a corporation like LM would make the claim if they didn't have a pretty good idea that they can pull it off.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 16, 2014)

And the games begin...

http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-bash-lockheed-on-nuclear-fusion-2014-10

"*Scientists Are Bashing Lockheed Martin's Nuclear Fusion 'Breakthrough'*"

"Researchers at Lockheed Martin Corp.'s Skunk Works, announced on Wednesday their ongoing work on a new technology that could bring about functional nuclear reactors powered by fusion in the next 10 years.

But most scientists and science communicators we talked to are skeptical of the claim.

"The nuclear engineering clearly fails to be cost effective," Tom Jarboe told Business Insider in an email. Jarboe is a professor of aeronautics and astronautics, an adjunct professor in physics, and a researcher with the  University of Washington's nuclear fusion experiment.'"


----------



## twilyth (Oct 16, 2014)

This is just a guess, but looking at the design, it seems like the cavity will generate a standing wave in the plasma.  This idea has been used to create refrigeration units with no moving parts.  Inside the cavity there would be areas of high and low pressure just the same as one has in a traveling wave.  If you tune the cavity properly, you can keep the areas of compression and rarefaction stationary.  Maybe the idea is to have fusion occur at the point of maximum compression, which I'm guessing would be at the center of the cavity.


----------



## Frick (Oct 16, 2014)

erocker said:


> Lockheed is huge.



That much I know, but I don't know if they have a track record of promising impossible things.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 16, 2014)

Jealously- Lockheed Martin have the rd/funds to accelerate progress of such projects, universities do not, its obvious universities would downplay such findings based upon jealously.

scientists would say the same thing if Boeing had made this discovery.



Sasqui said:


> And the games begin...
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-bash-lockheed-on-nuclear-fusion-2014-10
> 
> ...


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 16, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Jealously- Lockheed Martin have the rd/funds to accelerate progress of such projects, universities do not, its obvious universities would downplay such findings based upon jealously.
> 
> scientists would say the same thing if Boeing had made this discovery.



I'm guessing they'd say the same thing if anyone made the claims that Lockheed has done.  Scientists have been chasing viable fusion reaction since the 50's.  A hydrogen bomb is a form of fusion (initiated by fission... which in turn is initiated by conventional explosives).


----------



## twilyth (Oct 16, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> A hydrogen bomb is a form of fusion (initiated by fission... which in turn is initiated by conventional explosives).


Off topic, but there is a great show on the WGN (chicago) network called Manhattan about the development of the first atomic bomb.  A lot of the plot centers around how difficult it was for them to get implosion to work.  They make some significant progress in the most recent episodes which is pretty interesting.  They needed to find a way to invert the shock waves from the conventional explosions and they talk in some detail about how they do it. 

The show is fictional but there is a lot of interesting history too.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 16, 2014)

twilyth said:


> Off topic, but there is a great show on the WGN (chicago) network called Manhattan about the development of the first atomic bomb.  A lot of the plot centers around how difficult it was for them to get implosion to work.  They make some significant progress in the most recent episodes which is pretty interesting.  They needed to find a way to invert the shock waves from the conventional explosions and they talk in some detail about how they do it.
> 
> The show is fictional but there is a lot of interesting history too.



I'm interested in finding that.  I've got several good documentaries on the development of the bomb like "Trinity and beyond" and several others... too bad they're all on VHS!


----------



## twilyth (Oct 16, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> I'm interested in finding that.  I've got several good documentaries on the development of the bomb like "Trinity and beyond" and several others... too bad they're all on VHS!


Unfortunately, if you're outside the Chicago broadcast area, you probably need to get "creative" in trying to find it - wink, wink.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 16, 2014)

twilyth said:


> Unfortunately, if you're outside the Chicago broadcast area, you probably need to get "creative" in trying to find it - wink, wink.



Record it for me on DVD, I'll send you a SASE


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 16, 2014)

That's creative, alright


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2014)

Read this about Lockheed Martin's 6th generation fighter knowing it might pack a fusion power plant:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/picture-lockheed-reveals-conce/


			
				Skunk Works said:
			
		

> ...it is time to start looking at the technologies that will provide the next quantum leap in capabilities for the next generation of fighters (IOC ~ 2030+). Simply removing the pilot from an aircraft or introducing incremental improvements in signature and range does not constitute a generational leap in capability.
> 
> Greatly increased speed, longer range, extended loiter times, multi-spectral stealth, ubiquitous situation awareness, and self-healing structures and systems are some of the possible technologies we envision for the next generation of fighter aircraft.  *Next generation fighter capabilities will be driven by game changing technological breakthroughs in the areas of propulsion, materials, power generation, sensors, and weapons that are yet to be fully imagined.*


If that wasn't writing on the wall that they were toying with fusion (because they were), I don't know what is.

Electric engines (zero emissions).
Fusion power plant.
LASER weapons.

Lockheed admitted to working on it for at least 4 years (2010).  This statement was made in 2012.  The second sentence I quoted was a stab at Northrup Grumman and Boeing who put out 6th generation fighter material before Lockheed Martin.  Lockheed Martin was late and rather tight-lipped about it other than publishing the picture and the brief statement you see in the link.  This could have easily been because Lockheed wasn't prepared to go public with the fusion development yet.  It certainly checks all of the boxes.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 17, 2014)

Frick said:


> That much I know, but I don't know if they have a track record of promising impossible things.


Lockheed doesn't promise Frick. They just show up with the goods. If they say they can get it to work history has shown it will. Remember this is an American defense contractor. One thing I think you will agree on is America knows how to make the things that make war.

Everyone is talking about the positive aspects of this revelation. All I see is a new era of weaponry to kill more efficiently. Its what these guys get paid the BIG BUCKS to do.


----------



## natr0n (Oct 17, 2014)

Lockheed with all that secret alien tech.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 17, 2014)

natr0n said:


> Lockheed with all that secret alien tech.


Fusion is too primitive for any self-respecting, space-faring alien.  It would be like episode of ST-TNG where they were attacked by a ship with laser.  'Oh look Number One, they're using lasers - how adorable.'


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 17, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Everyone is talking about the positive aspects of this revelation. All I see is a new era of weaponry to kill more efficiently. Its what these guys get paid the BIG BUCKS to do.


_One might be led to question whether the scientists acted wisely in presenting the statesmen of the world with this appalling problem. Actually there was no choice. Once basic knowledge is acquired, any attempt at preventing its fruition would be as futile as hoping to stop the earth from revolving around the sun._ --Enrico Fermi



natr0n said:


> Lockheed with all that secret alien tech.


If they had access to alien tech, do you honestly believe it would still take 60+ years to make a fusion reactor?


----------



## natr0n (Oct 17, 2014)

My comment was made independent of this fusion article btw.


----------



## Frick (Oct 17, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Lockheed doesn't promise Frick. They just show up with the goods. If they say they can get it to work history has shown it will. Remember this is an American defense contractor. One thing I think you will agree on is America knows how to make the things that make war.
> 
> Everyone is talking about the positive aspects of this revelation. All I see is a new era of weaponry to kill more efficiently. Its what these guys get paid the BIG BUCKS to do.



Cool (apart from the untold suffering of millions), I had a feeling they were something like that. Nuclear tanks with nuclear railguns. Now they have weaponize tesla coils, make some power armor and all the games come true all at once.

Seriously though, I've been wanting a nuclear powered car since I was like six.


----------



## RCoon (Oct 17, 2014)

Frick said:


> Seriously though, I've been wanting a nuclear powered car since I was like six.



I wanted one of those magical electric toothbrushes back then. Goes to show how silly we both were.


----------



## McSteel (Oct 17, 2014)

Yeah, a standing plasma wave in a fittingly formed waveguide cavity seems like a good way to not require an implosion (like in the Teller-Ullam bomb)... However, the kinetic neutrons transferring energy to the container should erode the container itself over time, even compromising the cavity's form (and function) in the process. Wonder how they got around that...

I myself would actually use photovoltaics to gather energy, instead of making a heat generator.

Feasible cold fusion would be an even cooler (ha!) discovery - it would mean alchemy wasn't just a thousand-year-old dream


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 18, 2014)

If they can really stick this into the back of every car, oil industry will have a serious issue. Though i'd love to see this. I absolutely hate battery powered electric cars because they are literally crap no matter how good they are as a whole. Imagine Tesla or Fiskers Karma being fueled by this unit instead of half a ton of retarded batteries that take 3 days to charge and last for 5 miles. Fuck, i'd want to see this in a regular hatchback!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2014)

Yes, the natural gas, oil, and "green" energy companies are going to try to bury fusion because they're done for if they don't.  They succeeded with nuclear; I hope they fail with fusion.  Any country that decides not to use fusion is going to quickly look like they are in the dark ages compared to countries that embrace it.

I think there is a limit on how small they can get.  I could see fusion powered buses, trucks, trains, and maybe aircraft but cars are too small.  You need a turbine, reactor, and generator to make fusion electricity work.  It really depends on how small the reactor can reasonably get, still function, be safe, and be reliable.

If Lockheed delievers, I suspect the first transportation implementation would be in freight trains.  Union Pacific is probably already begging Lockheed for a prototype they can put on a chassis.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 18, 2014)

Robotech/SDF Macross!? Lol



FordGT90Concept said:


> Read this about Lockheed Martin's 6th generation fighter knowing it might pack a fusion power plant:
> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/picture-lockheed-reveals-conce/
> 
> If that wasn't writing on the wall that they were toying with fusion (because they were), I don't know what is.
> ...


----------



## McSteel (Oct 18, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think there is a limit on how small they can get.  I could see fusion powered buses, trucks, trains, and maybe aircraft but cars are too small.  You need a turbine, reactor, and generator to make fusion electricity work.  It really depends on how small the reactor can reasonably get, still function, be safe, and be reliable.
> 
> If Lockheed delievers, I suspect the first transportation implementation would be in freight trains.  Union Pacific is probably already begging Lockheed for a prototype they can put on a chassis.



That's why I mentioned making use of high-energy, efficient photovoltaics (available today!), because fusion plasma will most certainly emit a torrent of high-energy photons. This way you'd only need a VRM besides the fusion module itself and you'd get DC electricity straight from the source, no conversion necessary.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2014)

Photovoltaic can't handle the heat of a fusion reactor.  Remember what we're talking about: a star in a can.  I suppose themoelectic can be rather compact via the Seebeck Effect (used to power satellites from the heat off of decaying plutonium).  The vacuum of space is substantially colder than air and ambient temperature could drastically effect the power output which isn't something consumers would appreciate.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 18, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Photovoltaic can't handle the heat of a fusion reactor.  Remember what we're talking about: a star in a can.  I suppose themoelectic can be rather compact via the Seebeck Effect (used to power satellites from the heat off of decaying plutonium).  The vacuum of space is substantially colder than air and ambient temperature could drastically effect the power output which isn't something consumers would appreciate.


Thermionic conversion requires 2 plates very close to one another so that as one is heated, electrons are sort of 'boiled off' of one  plate and attracted to the positive plate in the circuit.  It's a pretty delicate thing to pull of because of how close the plates have to be to one another and the need for them to be in a vacuum environment.  At least that's how most thermionic converts work IIRC.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 18, 2014)

The containment vessel of the fusion core is heated and a vacuum could be established between the vessel and an outer layer.  My concern is that there's no means to bleed off excessive heat so the amount of fuel in the reactor has to be very, very finely tuned.  Too much and it will get too hot; too little and it will burn out.  I have no idea how much electricity this method could even generate.  I know plutonium can't do much but fusion is substantially hotter.  Just 1 MW would be more than enough.  Even 100kW would beat what batteries in cars can achieve today.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 18, 2014)

A lot of older space probes and satellites use thermionic converters that are powered by radioactive decay, so the amount of heat you need is pretty nominal.  I think caesium is often used for the cathode because its electrons are the easiest to boil off.  Also, the vapor seems to act as a conductor making it easier for electrons to jump the gap.  You can use other metals, but I don't think they're as efficient.  According to wikipedia, they are only 5% to 20% efficient.

The only reason it was used for satellites is because the power supply will last as long as you have enough radioactive decay.  So if you use enough of something with a decent halflife, the satellite can be powered almost indefinitely.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2014)

Yup, so I'm not so sure it would be a good idea to use in fusion powered cars.  It would be substantially more compact than steam though.  What alternatives are there?


----------



## twilyth (Oct 19, 2014)

IDK.  Even steam isn't that great efficiency wise.  I was just looking that up in fact because I was curious and it seems that the best you can get with steam is mid 40's% - but it can be as low as around 30%.  It seems to depend a lot on how much pressure you can generate.  Hydroelectric by comparison is about 90% efficient - I'm guessing that's because generator efficiency is also around 90% and the water drives the generators directly.

edit:  btw, I was recently reading that solar panels might be 30% or more efficient in the not too distant future and that's not even the theoretical limit if they can use some sort of quantum mechanical capture mechanism similar to how photosynthesis works.


----------



## DayKnight (Oct 19, 2014)

RejZoR said:


> If they can really stick this into the back of every car, oil industry will have a serious issue. Though i'd love to see this. I absolutely hate battery powered electric cars because they are literally crap no matter how good they are as a whole. Imagine Tesla or Fiskers Karma being fueled by this unit instead of half a ton of retarded batteries that take 3 days to charge and last for 5 miles. Fuck, i'd want to see this in a regular hatchback!



At least, when they fail, they dont/wont take half a city with them.

... and you and your precious bottom, can sue.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2014)

DayKnight said:


> At least, when they fail, they dont/wont take half a city with them.


That only happens in Soviet Russia.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 19, 2014)

DayKnight said:


> At least, when they fail, they dont/wont take half a city with them.
> 
> ... and you and your precious bottom, can sue.



Considering how cars always blow up in American movies, it's not really any less safe than traditional petrol cars...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2014)

Fun fact: those are gasoline fires.  Explosives push, tear, and shear, not bun; this is why explosives are used to put out particularly nasty fires (e.g. burning oil wells).

Extra fun fact: The Ford Pinto actually upholds that stigma of cars on fire.


----------



## MilkyWay (Oct 19, 2014)

Lockheed Martin the company who built and designed the F-35 Lightning II LOL

I don't get it ITER have been working on Fusion for years and have many research reactors including the one being built in France but Lockheed suddenly got the fucking chips down?

I think the main problems are containment and sustaining a reaction. Its safer than fisson so even if all they did was replace any old decrepit fission plants it would be better than what we currently have around the planet. Having said that i don't think its a be all end all solution but its hell of a lot better than what we currently use. What i'd like to see is this as a stepping stone.

This could be good for hydrogen power cells; to get hydrogen you need initial splitting of hydrogen and oxygen from water. I read about using photocatalytic water splitting from solar or something to create fuel for hydrogen cells, sounds interesting to me as the problem i had with hydrogen was how they got the hydrogen in the first place. The most popular way of getting hydrogen is hydrocarbons from fossil fuels. They are also looking into ways to use spent nuclear fuel. Hydrogen is probably a hell of a lot better than using a fucking reactor in your car that will produce waste and need reactor walls renewed. I can see why the military might want to use a fussion reactor because they can monitor it and have the funds to service regularly, a regular joe won't take as good care and it will be harder to regulate and monitor a reactor in a car.

Oil industry already has a serious problem; fossil fuels are finite and new drilling techniques are expensive to research and implement. Factor in the rise of research into renewables. Personally i'd like the world to pump money into solar to get the production costs down and efficiency up, theres a lot of positives to solar; jobs creation in service and repair, research, installation, building of the production means, production and creation itself, self sustainability, less of an eyesore ect. Even better if they can get it to create hydrogen fuel.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2014)

And F-22 Raptor.  The reason why F-35 is becoming a money pit is because the design is being torn between Air Force, Navy, Marines, and all of the other foreign buyers the USA roped into the JSF program.  It's led to a Pandora's Box of expectations which has led to cost overruns to meet those expectations.  Remember what F-35 promised: the world's second production, fixed-wing VTOL aircraft.  The first being, of course, the venerable Harrier which has the Achilles' Heel the F-35 lacks: subsonic. 

ITER is a governmental organization; Lockheed Martin is private.  Lockheed has the resources to hire the best and the brightest; governmental organizations tend not to.  This doesn't surprise me at all, really.  Research Lockheed Skunk Works if you want more information.  This is a group of people that are known for doing the impossible.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 19, 2014)

Uh, people are missing the big picture. If it can fit in the back up a truck then it can fit in a... wait for it... SPACE SHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2014)

I don't think there's any reasonable way to turn fusion into space propulsion.  It could be used to produce power for electrical systems on ships/satellites/probes though.  Lockheed never mentioned what the refueling process is like however (constantly needs more fuel? can be fueled once and last for x length of time? is there a way to slow and accelerate the reaction? and so on).


----------



## Easy Rhino (Oct 19, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't think there's any reasonable way to turn fusion into space propulsion.



You say that now. But a week ago if someone mentioned the possibility of creating small nuclear reactors you would have said there was any reasonable way to do that.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 19, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> Uh, people are missing the big picture. If it can fit in the back up a truck then it can fit in a... wait for it... SPACE SHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Or a ship as mentioned , it ww make a sub with much greater range too.
I'm mostly pondering how they are containing the neutrinos emmitted to generate the heat , , that's where the difficulty has been in all other attempts to get this working


----------



## twilyth (Oct 19, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> Uh, people are missing the big picture. If it can fit in the back up a truck then it can fit in a... wait for it... SPACE SHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I wonder if an ion drive could accelerate a ship to relativistic speeds of say 1/10 or 1/4 the speed of light.  In theory I can't see why it couldn't if you had enough mass to use for propellant.  And you could always harvest more propellant just from traveling through space.

Next step - deflector shields


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> You say that now. But a week ago if someone mentioned the possibility of creating small nuclear reactors you would have said there was any reasonable way to do that.


Yes, I've talked about fusion numerous times in the past.  It is a tough nut to crack but when it is cracked, it's the only real answer to fossil fuels.  As for propulsion, it goes back to Newton's Laws of Motion.  Fusion doesn't support any of them, unfortunately. 



theoneandonlymrk said:


> Or a ship as mentioned , it ww make a sub with much greater range too.
> I'm mostly pondering how they are containing the neutrinos emmitted to generate the heat , , that's where the difficulty has been in all other attempts to get this working


Could be an exotic material.  Skunk Works has access to a lot of those.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 19, 2014)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Or a ship as mentioned , it ww make a sub with much greater range too.
> I'm mostly pondering how they are containing the neutrinos emmitted to generate the heat , , that's where the difficulty has been in all other attempts to get this working


You probably meant to say neutrons.  Neutrinos have almost no mass and barely interact with ordinary matter.  You couldn't contain them even if you wanted to.


----------



## Norton (Oct 19, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yes, I've talked about fusion numerous times in the past.  It is a tough nut to crack but when it is cracked, it's the only real answer to fossil fuels.  As for propulsion, it goes back to Newton's Laws of Motion.  Fusion doesn't support any of them, unfortunately. .



You could do quite a bit with a massive supply of electricity though....

Imagine this:

Ejecting the crews waste products through a rail gun out of the back of the spacecraft at a portion of light speed. Call it the *T*(urd) *D*rive patent pending


----------



## Vario (Oct 19, 2014)

MilkyWay said:


> Lockheed Martin the company who built and designed the F-35 Lightning II LOL
> 
> I don't get it ITER have been working on Fusion for years and have many research reactors including the one being built in France but Lockheed suddenly got the fucking chips down?
> 
> ...



I don't trust LM to do anything correctly, the F35 is a total joke.



Norton said:


> You could do quite a bit with a massive supply of electricity though....
> 
> Imagine this:
> 
> Ejecting the crews waste products through a rail gun out of the back of the spacecraft at a portion of light speed. Call it the *T*(urd) *D*rive patent pending



"Brown-ian Motion" lol


----------



## Steevo (Oct 19, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Besides hydro, nuclear fission is the cheapest energy source per gigawatt/hr.  Nuclear fusion is safe (no radiation, no meltdown) and fusible materials are practically endless in supply.  It is not free (nothing is) but compared to current sources of electricity/heat, it is undeniably the cheapest and safest.




Fusion releases high energy neutrons, making the vessel highly radioactive, and weakening the structure due to fatigue. But no different than high energy fission.


I am very excited about this, and it looks good, except the "cost" part, I haven't read anything about that. So start-up costs and maintenance, life cycle and other factors may make this another step in the process and not the unlimited free energy we dream of. 


For example, unless they have found a superconductor that works close to plasma temperatures, it will require massive amounts of cryo cooling, and perhaps something like aerogel foam insulation, and precious metals to cover the foam and reflect heat.


----------



## Ahhzz (Oct 19, 2014)

Norton said:


> You could do quite a bit with a massive supply of electricity though....
> 
> Imagine this:
> 
> Ejecting the crews....


  Woohoo!!!!


----------



## twilyth (Oct 19, 2014)

I don't know if you would have to do anything special in terms of cooling.  I found this at what seems to be a knowledgeable website.


> In a fusion reactor, the concept is that neutrons generated from the D-T fusion reaction will be absorbed in a blanket containing lithium which surrounds the core. The lithium is then transformed into tritium (which is used to fuel the reactor) and helium. The blanket must be thick enough (about 1 metre) to slow down the high-energy (14 MeV) neutrons. The kinetic energy of the neutrons is absorbed by the blanket, causing it to heat up. The heat energy is collected by the coolant (water, helium or Li-Pb eutectic) flowing through the blanket and, in a fusion power plant, this energy will be used to generate electricity by conventional methods. If insufficient tritium is produced, some supplementary source must be employed such as using a fission reactor to irradiate heavy water or lithium with neutrons, and extraneous tritium creates difficulties with handling, storage and transport.


----------



## McSteel (Oct 19, 2014)

...or they could opt for Beryllium (well, at least as a part of a composite blanket), since it's very good at reflecting neutrons _and_ conducting heat. It's a bit expensive, but still...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 19, 2014)

Vario said:


> I don't trust LM to do anything correctly, the F35 is a total joke.
> 
> 
> 
> "Brown-ian Motion" lol


You don't trust LM to do anything correctly? Same people who brought you the F-22 Raptor? Good to know.

What you will note is a bunch of countries is milking the program for all its worth. That's not the F-35's problem. That's typical government grafting. Here is a GREAT breakdown of why its the worlds fault WAY more then LM's. LM is just trying to make its customers happy.......as long as the check clears.

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8

Want to screw a soup up? Have 20 different chefs. Here is a quote.....



> One reason why the project has become such a boondoggle is that many states and countries are significantly invested in the plane, relying on its production for income and jobs.
> 
> Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8#ixzz3GcHL6UEz



Basically all these countries are "invested" into the F-35 and keep moving the goal posts to keep government kick backs coming in from local companies in their respected countries.

Lockheed is one of the most innovative companies in the world. There isn't a single government entity in the WORLD that can compete with their kind of innovation. They are the definition of what a free market can do.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 19, 2014)

The only time a government organization got close was the Manhattan Project (and similar all-in projects) and there's two features of projects that get results: 1) secrecy (most government leaders know nothing about it so they can't politicize it) and 2) they're ran like a free enterprise business in that they are objective oriented.  The fact is, a second Manhattan Project will never happen because there will never be another Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was practically a dictator ("wartime president") for 3 going on 4 terms.  Congress gave him what he asked for the most part and that allowed the Manhattan Project to happen.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 20, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The only time a government organization got close was the Manhattan Project (and similar all-in projects) and there's two features of projects that get results: 1) secrecy (most government leaders know nothing about it so they can't politicize it) and 2) they're ran like a free enterprise business in that they are objective oriented.  The fact is, a second Manhattan Project will never happen because there will never be another Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was practically a dictator ("wartime president") for 3 going on 4 terms.  Congress gave him what he asked for the most part and that allowed the Manhattan Project to happen.




Which is ironic as FDR was basically the father of crony capitalism in the United States. His "New Deal" basically paved the road for the incompetent and worthless government we have today in the United States.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 20, 2014)

Most basic research, IOW research that looks at basic questions in a field of science, is funded by govt grants.  Beyond that, the govt sponsors and pays for about 15% of ALL R&D in the US as of 2011. You can see that in the following chart and by comparing that to the total listed here.







So it's a little silly to point to one example of private industry succeeding in a particular area and from that concluding that govt spending on research is pointless and stupid.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 20, 2014)

twilyth said:


> Most basic research, IOW research that looks at basic questions in a field of science, is funded by govt grants.  Beyond that, the govt sponsors and pays for about 15% of ALL R&D in the US as of 2011. You can see that in the following chart and by comparing that to the total listed here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That all depends on what they consider funding and how its attributed to the actual R&D. All that chart shows me is a lot of special interest groups getting paid 300 dollars for toilet seats since 1995 its gone from 150 bucks to 300. Common sense is not so common.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 20, 2014)

Yup.  I'm sure that's where the bulk of the money goes.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 20, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Which is ironic as FDR was basically the father of crony capitalism in the United States. His "New Deal" basically paved the road for the incompetent and worthless government we have today in the United States.


Indeed, I don't care for him either.  History gives him too much praise.  He started the trend of massive executive which breed that crony capitalism that persists today.  The government literally has over 2 million hands and the people only semi know what about 500 of those hands are doing.  That's the heart of the problem with the USA today and it came from the FDR administration.

But I digress, that is off topic.




twilyth said:


> Most basic research, IOW research that looks at basic questions in a field of science, is funded by govt grants.  Beyond that, the govt sponsors and pays for about 15% of ALL R&D in the US as of 2011. You can see that in the following chart and by comparing that to the total listed here.


Uh, 15%, which means private enterprise is funding 85% of research and that's only research that has public money attached which most companies don't have the political prowess to get any.  15% is pathetic and see the Department of Energy's budget?  Fusion-never material.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 20, 2014)

twilyth said:


> Yup.  I'm sure that's where the bulk of the money goes.


No it goes to worth while projects like Solyndra that they private sector wouldn't touch with a 10 foot poll. Its all money well spent I'm sure. Not a smidgen of crony capitalism.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 20, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Uh, 15%, which means private enterprise is funding 85% of research and that's only research that has public money attached which most companies don't have the political prowess to get any.  15% is pathetic and see the Department of Energy's budget?  Fusion-never material.


So basically you're arguing that there should be more govt funding of research.  No argument here.

Edit:  and as I said, most of the basic research in the US is govt funded.  You can see that from the charts in this article. It looks like about half of that research is govt funded.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 20, 2014)

F-35 bashing aside:

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/lockheed-martin-fusion/

They have a strategy for fusion containment... dynamic magnetic field manipulation... but it sounds theoretical! Maybe they've got a way to sense plasma bubbles or predict them -  and a way for the magnetic fields to adjust, and fast enough.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 20, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> F-35 bashing aside:
> 
> http://www.wired.com/2014/10/lockheed-martin-fusion/
> 
> They have a strategy for fusion containment... dynamic magnetic field manipulation... but it sounds theoretical! Maybe they've got a way to sense plasma bubbles or predict them -  and a way for the magnetic fields to adjust, and fast enough.


Yeah, that sounds strange.  I always thought that plasma was slipperier than snail slime.  You squeeze it over here and it pops out in 6 different places.  IIRC, torus shaped reactors keep the plasma flowing in a circle around the torus - I guess to create some momentum/inertia the plasma would have to overcome to break containment.  Dynamically shaping the field in response to changes in the plasma sounds like a very neat trick if they can pull it off.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 20, 2014)

twilyth said:


> So basically you're arguing that there should be more govt funding of research.  No argument here.


Only in fields that are too expensive for private research which basically encompasses only two fields: health research and space research.  Fusion fits under space.  Private industry doesn't need incentive to research the rest.

There's a ton of research going on all of the time that is never accounted for when compared to government funding for research.  Case in point: Intel developing smaller fabs is all research and they don't get a dime for it from the government.  They may get tax incentives for building in a specific place but they aren't getting paid to make circuits smaller.  Another example is fast food chains expanding their line up of foods.  They have to research what foods people want, design a means to mass produce it, and ensure their logistics system can handle it.  They see virtually no government funds for this.  Or how about GE designing more efficient turbine engines.  The only way they get funds is because of a government contract to _buy_ the engines, not because the government set aside research funds for it.  As TheMailMan said, most of the research is going into projects that are crony at best, fraudulent at worst.  The government is notoriously bad at delegating funds for research because it's based on political favors, not what American society requires.


----------



## Bansaku (Oct 20, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> Uh, people are missing the big picture. If it can fit in the back up a truck then it can fit in a... wait for it... SPACE SHIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I know eh? My first thought was 'one step closer to an impulse drive!' Engage!!


----------



## twilyth (Oct 20, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Only in fields that are too expensive for private research which basically encompasses only two fields: health research and space research.  Fusion fits under space.  Private industry doesn't need incentive to research the rest.
> 
> There's a ton of research going on all of the time that is never accounted for when compared to government funding for research.  Case in point: Intel developing smaller fabs is all research and they don't get a dime for it from the government.  They may get tax incentives for building in a specific place but they aren't getting paid to make circuits smaller.  Another example is fast food chains expanding their line up of foods.  They have to research what foods people want, design a means to mass produce it, and ensure their logistics system can handle it.  They see virtually no government funds for this.  Or how about GE designing more efficient turbine engines.  The only way they get funds is because of a government contract to _buy_ the engines, not because the government set aside research funds for it.  As TheMailMan said, most of the research is going into projects that are crony at best, fraudulent at worst.  The government is notoriously bad at delegating funds for research because it's based on political favors, not what American society requires.


It's good to know that you have such a comprehensive knowledge of the state of research and what is needed.  Good for you.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 21, 2014)

twilyth said:


> Yeah, that sounds strange.  I always thought that plasma was slipperier than snail slime.  You squeeze it over here and it pops out in 6 different places.  IIRC, torus shaped reactors keep the plasma flowing in a circle around the torus - I guess to create some momentum/inertia the plasma would have to overcome to break containment.  Dynamically shaping the field in response to changes in the plasma sounds like a very neat trick if they can pull it off.



That's what is so cool about the very tech we get hot about, sensors, computing speed and computing power.  Maybe that's the key to all this.  Traditional fusion has dabbled with static containment fields, or ones that don't react fast enough!


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 21, 2014)

I worked at Rockwell International and Boeing Aerospace for a combined 20 years. (retired from Boeing) There is a lot of research and development going on in the private sector, all of the time. 
I was witness to a lot of it and it was spectacular to see.
All of the large corporations have Labs and do a lot of studies too.

Imagine taking the rocket engine out of an Aircraft's Missile and throwing it away, ~then~ ending up with an (engine-less) missile that is twice as fast and has twice the range. They did things like that using some simple ideas and taking chances on them. 

Also, The US Government will open a R&D bid session describing what it wants in the way of new technology or equipment. This is usually stuff that doesn't yet exist. 
Manufacturers then put their thinking caps on and come up with ideas to give it to them.
Based on the responses from different companies, the government awards money to one, or more companies to develop their ideas. 
This happens all of the time. Some of it is secret.

Years earlier, I was in the US Army and worked for the Combat Developments Experimentation Command. (at Hunter Liggett, California and then in Ft. Greely, Alaska)
I got to see the development of laser aided targeting and computer aided aiming for pilots. Some private contractors were involved with these ideas.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 21, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Only in fields that are too expensive for private research which basically encompasses only two fields: health research and space research.  Fusion fits under space.  Private industry doesn't need incentive to research the rest.
> 
> There's a ton of research going on all of the time that is never accounted for when compared to government funding for research.  Case in point: Intel developing smaller fabs is all research and they don't get a dime for it from the government.  They may get tax incentives for building in a specific place but they aren't getting paid to make circuits smaller.  Another example is fast food chains expanding their line up of foods.  They have to research what foods people want, design a means to mass produce it, and ensure their logistics system can handle it.  They see virtually no government funds for this.  Or how about GE designing more efficient turbine engines.  The only way they get funds is because of a government contract to _buy_ the engines, not because the government set aside research funds for it.  As TheMailMan said, most of the research is going into projects that are crony at best, fraudulent at worst.  The government is notoriously bad at delegating funds for research because it's based on political favors, not what American society requires.


Doesn't really matter how the government defines "R&D" and funding. Its all what how much "K Street" can graft off the top. The F-35 is a prime example.

As for the fusion reactor it will go to the highest bidder in which ever crooked agency needs perpetual drones to spy on people not paying their taxes to K street.........errr the "Government".


----------



## twilyth (Oct 21, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> RealNeil said:
> 
> 
> > I worked at Rockwell International and Boeing Aerospace for a combined 20 years. (retired from Boeing) There is a lot of research and development going on in the private sector, all of the time.
> ...


I was talking about basic research.  Things like the human genome project which, though it was started by the govt and laid much of the groundwork in terms of how best to go about it, it was Venter's company that actually completed it - ahead of schedule.  So it's not like I'm saying there's no place for private research or that companies don't do it.  The article I linked to shows that about half of basic research is private.  But that probably includes a lot of privately funded charities and institutes.

The problem is that most companies want to see practical results from their research.  Some, like IBM might do it just because it's the right thing to do, but they're the exception not the rule.  And when times are tight, research is the first thing to get cut - both govt and private.  There's also the fact that govt funded research has to be public domain, so it adds to our knowledge base.  Corporate funded research may not get published at all since they own the IP.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 21, 2014)

twilyth said:


> The article I linked to shows that about half of basic research is private.


That only includes projects that have some public funding (read: vast minority).  Government doesn't have access to any data on entirely privately funded R&D which comprises of the lion's share of R&D spending.  Case in point: your graph shows federal spending of about $66 billion per year on R&D.  The top 10 semiductor companies *alone* spent $28 billion on R&D in 2013 (Intel being #1, of course, at over $10 billion).  The government is a tiny fish in a huge R&D pond.

The things the government needs to research are projects that private industry sees no potential profit in.  A prime example of this is an Ebola vaccine.  Private companies won't waste resources on it until _after_ there is an epidemic (read: lots of potential customers).  Public funding changes that calculation leading to preemptive research.

Coming back to the topic: everyone knows fusion will pay off but the unknown factor is not knowing how much it will cost before the pay off comes.  Lockheed has apparently committed to paying that cost (or at least recruiting others to share the cost) because their government contracts dry up if they don't innovate.  Fusion is pretty much the pinnacle of innovation for the time being because it solves many, many problems we're facing today.


----------



## twilyth (Oct 21, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The things the government needs to research are projects that private industry sees no potential profit in.  A prime example of this is an Ebola vaccine.  Private companies won't waste resources on it until _after_ there is an epidemic (read: lots of potential customers).  Public funding changes that calculation leading to preemptive research.


Exactly.  Which has been the point I've been trying to make. Which basically contradicts your previous statement.


FordGT90Concept said:


> The only time a government organization got close was the Manhattan Project (and similar all-in projects) and there's two features of projects that get results: 1) secrecy (most government leaders know nothing about it so they can't politicize it) and 2) they're ran like a free enterprise business in that they are objective oriented.  The fact is, a second Manhattan Project will never happen because there will never be another Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was practically a dictator ("wartime president") for 3 going on 4 terms.  Congress gave him what he asked for the most part and that allowed the Manhattan Project to happen.


Basic research is what makes practical R&D possible.  Even things as seemingly irrelevant to everyday life like astronomy and astrophysics can and do lead to discoveries that eventually have practical benefits.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 21, 2014)

I was replying to this statement:


TheMailMan78 said:


> Lockheed is one of the most innovative companies in the world. There isn't a single government entity in the WORLD that can compete with their kind of innovation. They are the definition of what a free market can do.


The Manhattan project cost $2 billion dollars from 1939 to 1945 in 1945 dollars which calculates to $26.4 billion in today's dollars.  By contrast, we've only spent $22.4 billion dollars from 1953 to 2012 on fusion which will cost a lot more than fission due to its nature.  Fusion research was politicized by the gas & oil industry which is why the federal government is putting virtually nothing into it today.

Obviously we don't know how much Lockheed has spent on fusion but I guarantee you it was a lot more than the federal government did in the last decade.




twilyth said:


> Even things as seemingly irrelevant to everyday life like astronomy and astrophysics can and do lead to discoveries that eventually have practical benefits.


That's a stretch.  If you want practical benefits from those fields of study, you're better off pumping it into space research (NASA/DARPA).  Going there tells us a whole lot more than a telescope can not to mention all of the breakthroughs that are required just to make it happen.


Edit: Example of research fraud that like came out of NIH's R&D budget.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 21, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't think there's any reasonable way to turn fusion into space propulsion.  It could be used to produce power for electrical systems on ships/satellites/probes though.  Lockheed never mentioned what the refueling process is like however (constantly needs more fuel? can be fueled once and last for x length of time? is there a way to slow and accelerate the reaction? and so on).



that concept warp drive of NASA's that allowed minor space propulsion on only electricity paired with this would work pretty well.


----------

