Lockheed Martin puts out a Fusion Related Press Release

Running Dog_sl

shitlord
1,199
3
This is technically true, but.....who cares? Ok, maybe we have 30,000 years worth of fusion fuel and only 3,000 years of fission fuel, but that's pretty much the epitome of irrelevant.
I think at the last count there's between 100 and 200 years worth of Uranium left to extract before it gets really difficult to do so. Thorium should be an alternative, but these days who wants to be the guinea pig for a new type of commercial (not research) fission reactor?

With regards to the Lockheed release, it's possible they have made a breakthrough but I'd be sceptical about how significant it is. ITER is burning trough money but they are making progress slowly. One of the major issues is that whatever you make a fusion reactor out of, it has to withstand intense neutron bombardment, and the only way to find out how well it does so is to make one. If you have to keep rebuilding your reactor every few years then fusion might not be viable, so knowing what kind of materials work best is crucial.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,018
47,104
Not really. They have given ZERO details about just how the fuck they plan to contain the amount of heat in a device that small. They are interested in media attention. I understand taking a company like them seriously, but when the hundreds of scientists working on the ITER that Lleauaric referenced above are skeptical about the claims, I am going to roll my eyes at the for profit company that makes planes.

If we get our working prototype in 5 years, then awesome. But we won't. They want funding and adoration. Half of their published material even has the "PATENTS PENDING!!" copy you see in late night infomercials.
Does Lockheed have any history of making sensational claims that were for the purposes of generating funding that turned out to not be true?

(Insert snarky comments about JSF and F-22 here)
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
78,878
156,742
Engineering the costliest boondoggle in mankind's history has to count for something. The F-35 project costs more than the GDP of all but about 10 countries in the world.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,018
47,104
Engineering the costliest boondoggle in mankind's history has to count for something. The F-35 project costs more than the GDP of all but about 10 countries in the world.
We are aware Russia couldn't afford it, thanks bro
 

Haast

Lord Nagafen Raider
3,281
1,636
Does Lockheed have any history of making sensational claims that were for the purposes of generating funding that turned out to not be true?

(Insert snarky comments about JSF and F-22 here)
You just answered your own question? The F-35 program is a well-documented epic fuck-up. The F-22 can't properly supply oxygen to pilots, causing them to black out during flight. Those aren't snarky, they're just plain embarrassing.

However, I have no idea what their recent record is in the energy domain. Hopefully better than their recent aviation endeavors.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,018
47,104
You just answered your own question? The F-35 program is a well-documented epic fuck-up. The F-22 can't properly supply oxygen to pilots, causing them to black out during flight. Those aren't snarky, they're just plain embarrassing.

However, I have no idea what their recent record is in the energy domain. Hopefully better than their recent aviation endeavors.
Cost overruns and performance problems on defense projects are hardly limited to Lockheed. I'm talking about sensational claims that flat out ARE NOT TRUE. E.g. we have a new type of plane that will revolutionize flight - no such plane exists. Which is what we're talking about with fusion. If Lockheed makes a fusion reactor that underperforms by 10-20% and costs 50% more than they say, that'd still be a huge fucking success.
 

Haast

Lord Nagafen Raider
3,281
1,636
Cost overruns and performance problems on defense projects are hardly limited to Lockheed. I'm talking about sensational claims that flat out ARE NOT TRUE. E.g. we have a new type of plane that will revolutionize flight - no such plane exists. Which is what we're talking about with fusion. If Lockheed makes a fusion reactor that underperforms by 10-20% and costs 50% more than they say, that'd still be a huge fucking success.
I admire your optimism for Lockheed's success, but I don't share it. Until they can provide a substantial demonstration, I'm very skeptical.
 

Pancreas

Vyemm Raider
1,131
3,818
The F-35 being a flop is more related to the Pentagon having their heads up their asses and making ridiculous demands of the project in an attempt to reduce costs. Hello decision to go with one engine. It's the classic, client always being right, bull shit that forces engineers to do a little "day drinkin". LM should have pushed back and told the boys in blue how bad their idea really was.

Then again It's hard to say no to your sugar daddy, no matter how degrading it might be. So management at Lockstep Martin says make it happen, too afraid to upset big poppa G. The engineers say, "It hurts, please make it stop, it's not supposed to work like that!" Lots of nasty internal emails, hemorrhaging, and a few bonus size bottles of lube later and oila... they managed to make something that flies. Now of course time has proven that just getting something off the ground is no longer going to cut it.

I mean that tricked worked at Kitty Hawk, but if the Wright brothers had been funded by the US government, they would have been required to build something that could mount a cannon and drop cavalry into the enemy trenches. Saying no, that can't work, is not a sign of weakness if you have the math to support it. But there are lots of physics-lly impaired people that call the shots and think that with enough money you can design your way out of anything.

So maybe this announcement is just a desperate PR stunt to try and gloss over the F-35 incendiary strike fighter with it's internal combustion engine. I mean hell, who wouldn't forgive them for making a multi-billion dollar piece of shit if they went ahead and turned available energy into an ? symbol. And they don't even need to show anything for their claims for like another 10 years... by then they will have built a plane that works or something. PURE FUCKING GENIUS.
 

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
You write that post like the engineers actually minded they got more, higher billable hours on that contract.
 

Pancreas

Vyemm Raider
1,131
3,818
I know there are a few guys in every firm sitting squarely in the autistic spectrum that actually care that what they design, works. They are the ones that never get promoted into management because they are such good "foot soldiers". It's the ones that shovel shit out the door like they are cleaning stalls, those are the ones that get to hang their hat up a few pegs higher. But why shouldn't they be compensated, killing your sense of ethics and integrity is hard and painful work.

Anyways, I am not saying Lockheed Martin is free of blame, I am just saying shit needs to get spread around more.
 

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
<Nazi Janitors>
28,369
43,355
Where can I find more information on toll booths?
 

Haast

Lord Nagafen Raider
3,281
1,636
Anyways, I am not saying Lockheed Martin is free of blame, I am just saying shit needs to get spread around more.
This is true. While the military is happy to foist all the blame onto LM for the F-35, in reality there is plenty of blame to go around.
 

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,518
583
On the other hand the Skunk Works designed a mach 3 scramjet-engined titanium-bodied plane usingslide rules and paperin the late 50s.
You say that like slide rules are weaksauce. There is a direct relationship to the decline of American High School math scores and the introduction of the cheap electronic calculator. We should junk calculators for High School math and force the kids to use log-log slide rulers - gives students an intuitive understand of logs, exponents and basic isomorphisms.

As to Lockheed - ITER is a $40 Billion hunk of junk. Tokamaks are a dead-end for Fusion - we've been working on them for 60ish years, if they were at all feasible we'd be a lot closer: I think it's telling that the US and Japan collectively said "fuck it" to fighting to get the ITER built in Japan instead of France. Lockheed's compact reactor is just one of several approaches - Z-pinch fusion being developed at Sandia, the Helion guys (also truck sized), Etc. Anything is better than throwing money at and/or beating the dead horse that is ITER.
 

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,518
583
We should junk calculators for High School math and force the kids to use log-log slide rulers - gives students an intuitive understand of logs, exponents and basic isomorphisms.
For those who don't know what a log-log ruler can look like ->

rrr_img_79589.jpg
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
78,878
156,742
Tad, tell us how the LM fusion reactor ties into the latest Obama conspiracy theory
 

Skanda

I'm Amod too!
6,662
4,506
Lockheed needed the top sekret cargo on MH370 for their reactor so Obama ordered Iran to steal the jet for us.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
78,878
156,742
Is the reactor powered by mangos? Or whatever that fruit was in the cargo hold?
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Sorry guys but tad is right about that one. I'm not good at math, I'm bad at it in fact. Given this fact it is still shocking to me how much worse at it people who are about ten years younger are. Putting calculators in the classroom forces the teachers to be lazy.

We're not talking about complex advanced concepts. We're talking about the basic ability to subtract or divide, or even understand what a fraction is and how it works. Then you have common core bullshit making it even worse.