Didn't read the article yet, but this is relevant to the discussion.
Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
31–40 of 41 posts
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you should listen to him. Fusion is still vapourware. For it to ever be viable outside a few niches, it will have to beat fission in price, because it will probably share many characteristics with fission plants (high capital costs, low cost of fuel, radioactive waste, huge plants). Fusion somehow ended up being branded as the future of energy. But the prospects aren't looking good so far. Fission plants are…
The project featured in the article, if successful, will produce no radioactive waste, fits inside a garage, and will likely be cheap overall. Unlike the well-funded laser and tokamak designs which get most media coverage and still don't work well and are unbelievably expensive.
In discussions of new nuclear technology, it's always a good idea to keep in mind the famous Paper Reactors Real Reactors document written by the architect of the worlds most successful nuclear power program.
http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/Rickover.pdf
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fusion has a huge political benefit in not being the same thing as fission. Fission isn't perfect, but it's way better than you'd think if you only looked at what we invest in. If it can be spun as a separate thing from Chernobyl/Three Mile Island/Fukushima then it might fare closer to what it should from a purely objective standpoint.
I learned during an energy project at elementary school (begin '90) a hypothetical nuclear fusion reactor would be a prime target for military action more so than fission. Tho I forgot the exact details on why, I suppose the reactor is easier damaged, whereas a fission reactor is much more difficult to cause a fallout with. Can anyone confirm that's true or false?
It's the other way around:
If a fission reactor is insuffciently cooled (due do the cooling system getting destroyed by attack or natural causes, cf the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster), the reaction will continue, the core can melt and breach containment.
If a (plasma-based) fusion reactor gets damaged, the plasma will dissipate and the reaction will stop.
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#34Lerner has been beating this drum for years, and presented at many conferences. And yet no one has invested. I'd love to know why. Either there's a catch to the technology that he's not disclosing (and the smart money doesn't have a motivation to disclose), or he's asking for unreasonable business terms. The only thing I know for sure is there's no lack of capital available for good fusion research. Not if the money…
>And yet no one has invested. I'd love to know why. investing means some ROI. There is no way to have any ROI here (to illustrate - try to imagine how you can get any ROI by investing back at the time in Einstein developing GR). They aren't going to build a lot of power plants themselves and for selling their tech - there should be some "secret sauce", and the current fusion development is at the stage when results o…
Sorry, but your theory doesn't work because plenty of other fusion projects are attracting VC. There is something wrong with Lerner specifically, not fusion generally, that's stopping people from putting money in.
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or owned a solar company.
On the other hand, it’s exactly what I wouldn’t say if I was building an interplanetary colony ship. Not if I thought it had any realistic chance of success, anyway.
The Sun shines on Mars too. Solar energy is a practical source of energy as far out as the asteroid belt. Nuclear energy isn't needed to accomplish anything that Musk wants to accomplish in life.
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, it’s exactly what I wouldn’t say if I was building an interplanetary colony ship. Not if I thought it had any realistic chance of success, anyway.
The Sun shines on Mars too. Solar energy is a practical source of energy as far out as the asteroid belt. Nuclear energy isn't needed to accomplish anything that Musk wants to accomplish in life.
Nuclear propulsion would make colonisation much more practical, much safer, and return trips much cheaper.
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Sun shines on Mars too. Solar energy is a practical source of energy as far out as the asteroid belt. Nuclear energy isn't needed to accomplish anything that Musk wants to accomplish in life.
Nuclear propulsion would make colonisation much more practical, much safer, and return trips much cheaper.
Maybe. I understand the physics says there's an ISP benefit. Standard rocket engines are well-understood though, work well, allow for retro-propulsion, and you can synthesize methane easily on Mars.
In the long term when the space transport infrastructure is as well developed as the terrestrial one, I can see the benefit of having different systems for different purposes, so you get the specialized benefits. But I'm not sure we are there yet.
To use an analogy from history, we aren't at the Golden Spike moment yet where California was sufficiently settled to warrant a continental rail road connecting the East and West Coasts. We're still in the exploration and settlement stage, and while trains may be more energy efficient, what we need is a Conestoga Wagon that can be operated and maintained by the settlers themselves while they live off the land and develop the first homesteads.
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear propulsion would make colonisation much more practical, much safer, and return trips much cheaper.
Maybe. I understand the physics says there's an ISP benefit. Standard rocket engines are well-understood though, work well, allow for retro-propulsion, and you can synthesize methane easily on Mars. In the long term when the space transport infrastructure is as well developed as the terrestrial one, I can see the benefit of having different systems for different purposes, so you get the specialized benefits. But I'm…
In the absence of a working fusion reactor, everything is necessarily speculative. That said, going from chemical to nuclear propulsion is estimated to reduce round-trip times from ~600 days (you have to wait at Mars for the orbits to realign), to 30 days.
This is roughly the difference between an 1881 steamliner from London to Syndey, and a 747.
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. I understand the physics says there's an ISP benefit. Standard rocket engines are well-understood though, work well, allow for retro-propulsion, and you can synthesize methane easily on Mars. In the long term when the space transport infrastructure is as well developed as the terrestrial one, I can see the benefit of having different systems for different purposes, so you get the specialized benefits. But I'm…
In the absence of a working fusion reactor, everything is necessarily speculative. That said, going from chemical to nuclear propulsion is estimated to reduce round-trip times from ~600 days (you have to wait at Mars for the orbits to realign), to 30 days. This is roughly the difference between an 1881 steamliner from London to Syndey, and a 747.
NASA is working on it, but until there's a working engine available for private rockets it seems premature.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/201...
Re: Startup company says it is one step closer to creating nuclear fusion
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the absence of a working fusion reactor, everything is necessarily speculative. That said, going from chemical to nuclear propulsion is estimated to reduce round-trip times from ~600 days (you have to wait at Mars for the orbits to realign), to 30 days. This is roughly the difference between an 1881 steamliner from London to Syndey, and a 747.
NASA is working on it, but until there's a working engine available for private rockets it seems premature. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/201...
Ordinarily I would agree. However, this is Musk, and both SpaceX and Tesla have made progress beyond what most commentors have thought reasonable when the first press releases went out.
I’d guess a 10%-30% chance SpaceX is already Skunkworks-ing some form of atomic rocket, either fusion or fission.
Edit: and yes, that estimate is despite the public comments.