The Nuclear-Powered Aircraft that Will Change Everything
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 04. 2023
- Nuclear energy was discovered decades ago. But while some applications found their way into service, many potential developments surpassed modern technology. That is, until the 2020s.
As early as the post-World War 2 era, the US Navy managed to harness nuclear power for naval propulsion, while the Air Force dreamed of the possibilities of nuclear-propelled aircraft. However, it was unimaginable to condense the enormity of nuclear power into a fighter-sized engine.
Today, an opportunity to develop the much-desired nuclear aircraft has opened, with the giant Lockheed Martin leading the conversation. The company recently patented several designs for what will likely change the future of aviation and the world alike: a miniature fusion reactor.
As Lev Artsimovic, father of the tokamak reactor, put it when asked about how soon nuclear power will be commercially available: (QUOTE) “When mankind needs it, maybe a short time before that.” - Věda a technologie
Would be stunning (and amusing) if Skunkworks manages to pull off fusion with such a small unit before the international ITER project.
We need
It is already in the work in our orbit and through out the solar system. . .See Germany and the Hanebu. . .
I don’t know whether to be depressed or impressed by how many of history’s technology breakthroughs were in the pursuit of better weapons of war.
@@MusicAutomation maybe just disgusted. . . because the money comes from OUR taxes and is used to destroy humanity. . We pay to get killed or just being made sick. . .
@@MusicAutomation impressed of course. Why would you be depressed?
My father worked at GE back in the 1950’s. He worked in an area where they we’re trying to build a nuclear powered jet engine.
I know P&WA did work on a nuclear aircraft engine at the CANEL plant in Middletown, Ct. CANEL is an acronym for Connecticut Advanced Nuclear Engine Lab.
The US Military decided it was not feasible at that time. Due to limitations on certain metals. Plus the cost was very, very expensive.
The crew shield was very heavy for the application
Did he get cancer?
Imagine if all ocean going vessels didn't rely on diesel fuel
Like before 1911.🤪
And used the wind 😂
Seems like this could be a better solution than what they are trying to do with them now. Sure there's security issues. I think it could be made pretty safe. Except most of those crew members are getting paid under $10 a DAY. Not sure I want a crew paid like that to be that close to anything radioactive.
@@bobbysenterprises3220 I agree 💯
Ot can be done but it won't be.
Tritium, one of the two Hydrogen isotopes used in current day fusion reactors, runs $30,000 per gram on today's market. (Deuterium, the other fuel, is around $10 per ounce) Current commercial application of Tritium (worldwide total) is around 400 ounces. Tritium is a byproduct of fission reactions, so production can only be ramped up (currently) by building more fission reactors. They've been promising us Fusion energy for many decades now, and each decade it gets "a little closer" but there's always a very long way to go.
Fusion reactors can also inexpensively produce tritium. Also, there are other ways to produce the fusion reaction without tritium, such as boron.
I have read the entire Wikipedia on Environmentalism and am therefore an Expert on nuclear power and I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about. Unless we stop using all fossil fuels and go to 100% Solar Power before the end of 2025 the world will be uninhabitable within 10 years. And the only way we can do that is by giving all the world's power and all the world's money to Experts like me so we can enforce Environmental Law and make a 100% Equitable World Economy where everything is owned and controlled by the World Government.
Interestingly, the last of the milestones for commercially viable fusion reactors (after recouping not only the electrical energy fed into the magnetic field and into heating of the plasma, but also the computers that control the plant) is to be able to sell enough electricity to pay for the tritium. This last factor could very likely be insignificant for a military application. The strategic advantages of an energy source that isn't tethered to a supply chain would outweigh its cost disadvantage in a ton of applications.
On the other hand, any application in aviation has the disadvantage over a stationary power plant that poses severe restrictions on possible reactor weights and sizes.
@@fishing953 Boron is way harder to use and no a fusion reactor does not produce Tritium. If you think it does give me a link to a peer reviewed journal article to prove it.
@@gordonlawrence1448 This is from Wikipedia. Look at the peer journals quoted below it. One of the fusion start up companies in the US is using this method - do some research.
quote: Tritium, one of the reactants required for this type of fusion, is radioactive. In fusion reactors, a 'breeding blanket' made of lithium is placed on the walls of the reactor, as lithium, when exposed to energetic neutrons, will produce tritium.
even if a plane can stay in the air for a year because of fuel it would still need to come down regularly for repairs and parts exchange
And for a bathroom break!!!
@@rogergoodman8665I would assume the plane would be unmanned, that or it would be large enough that it has bathrooms/sleeping quarters, and a large food supply. It would probably need 2 if not 3 crew to operate it for anything beyond a day or 2. You could also get creative and have it be remotely piloted while it’s enroute and have the pilot nap until it arrives in a combat zone
You don't come here for reality you come here for sensationalized mispronunciation!
For what repairs and what parts exchange?
@@rogergoodman8665 Yeah diapers, need to be changed.
Practical fusion energy has been the "holy grail" for some time. Your statement about a "simplified design" seems like the positive indicator of success I've heard in some time.
There was a lot of sunshine and bluebirds in this video.
Fusion power is 20 years away.
And it always will be 20 years away.
No I don't believe that. They recently got more energy out of a fusion reaction that went in. Now that was in the test vessel itself and not the entire reactor itself. But that is a major step many many people thought was '20 years away'. Fusion is gonna be one of those technologies that will just appear out of nowhere. Meaning all the work done in multiple places will all reach the major breakthroughs all at once.
@@TK199999 only by fudging the numbers do they get more power out . they only count the energy out from the lasers they use . but laser are less then 10% efficient ,more like 5%
….until mankind needs it, or just before that.
@@TK199999 you’re so naive and wrong. Look deeper into it. Don’t be a regurgitator(sic)
I've heard the same thing about global warming.
I have a hard time believing any of this is either real or near ready to use.
Don't have too hard of a time...
It was back in the early 70's that the president of SkunkWorks made a statement along the lines of "Whatever people think of as science fiction, like warp drive, we've done all that and taken it way further..."
Is the tech in the video available to conventional military products anytime soon? Probably not...
Not sure the same can be said for whatever black projects are already fielded
@@chrisburke624 Yeah, I don’t buy that either. One man’s statement is not fact. Warp drive my ass.
The concept has been around for a long time. It just took too much energy to fuse atoms
...as do the majority of us, with basic scientific knowledge and common sense.🤷♂
Yeah it sounds like a fucking reddit post. THE VERY TIP of the ice berg
I had to check the release to make sure it wasn't April 1st...
@MichaelMicah-gx6cn screw you scammer
😂 please don't shoot the nuclear reactor
There is absolutely no way that this'll be ready to be built for decades.
I believe they already done it once for the b-36 peacemaker back in the early nuclear years
It probably already exists. We, the people who paid for it, won't see this tech for decades...
If you are watching this now- this tech has already been mastered. We live in interesting times. Enjoy the ride.
Yeah, the first thing I thought about was how it could be utilized for space travel. If they could develop a propulsion system that could use this and allow an object or spacecraft to travel through space, it'd be a game-changer.
even using the current gen of ion thrusters this would be a game changer. having unlimited energy to speed up to get to a destination or slow down when you get there is a massive leap from where we are at today. if it actually works ya know.
@@jeff119990 exactly my thought on this comment and also to the potential for novel drive system
@@hybridt The Original Project Orion and Daedalus combined with solar sails and ion drive could get us to 40% the speed of light with 60 years ago tech! Some even say up to and over 80%!
@@jeff119990 how is nuclear energy on a ship unlimited?
we cant use nuclear power for spacecrafts it needs propellant gas. unless we make it to heat up the propelant gas, i think burning the gas will be much easier
How many times can you watch documentaries about the SR-71, the Tzar Bomba, the moon shots … without being slightly bored?
You are luddite since Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" in of 1932 said "only idiotic morons are satisfied from laying rail transit tracks of rail transit track construction"
The Flux Capacitor has entered the chat. 1.21 Gigawatts!!!
I would assume having that much energy on tap would make ion engines a lot more powerful
Dude, you got that 20/20 voice & cadence
Yep, about 30 years out, and always will be.
I have an idea: take one of these miniature fusion reactors and instead of powering a jet fighter, use them to power our cities instead!
NOPE
In 1966 French Car Company Citroen had a nuclear driven (Peltier Element) on display at the Geneva Auto Salon.
Radium powered 1930s car
My father took me to work with him one weekend at Lockheed Missile and Space in Sunnyvale California. He had to pick me up and carry me inside the room he needed to be in, because they couldn't let a 5 year old run around. There I watched a red beam of light bouncing around mirrors in a room. That was about 1967, and I was watching cutting edge laser research at the time. From there life only got more exciting for me.
It would seem that this advance would necessitate the replacement of a refueling tanker with a rearming tanker.
The CFR was touted about by LMT almost ten years ago. Since that very beautiful press release, there has not been anything from them
Just let me know when I don't have to plug my cell phone in anymore because the reactor has gotten small enough to fit in a phone.. that's when it will revolutionize my life lol
Fusion will always be 20 years away and when 20 years pass it will still be 20 years away until the day fusion is powering a city full time then I'll believe it isn't a pipe dream.
Wow, what an impressively long-winded video that says nothing other than it would be smaller.
I take it you already understand the fundamentals of Fusion Reactors like the rest of use? I believe this channel is going under that assumption.
@@venturefanatic9262 I gave up about 2/3rds through. All that had been said to that point was that it was small and used fusion. Other than size, it said nothing that couldn't be said about any magnetic confinement reactor.
Oh you missed where they keep saying " with a little more testing ".
@@deanmason5827 little being the only thing said in 15 minutes.
Oh if only Velma used a torque wrench
The radioactive byproduct of fusion was brought up in the video, how would they go about safely collecting and storing it on board until landing again? Especially on a year+ long trip, it would be of great importance to ensure radioactive material isn't shot out into the atmosphere through the exhaust, even a material with as short of a half life as 12 years could be disastrous if enough is being constantly produced by any number of applications for the technology
That footage from Lockheed is from 8 years ago, and in it, the engineer said he would have a working miniature reactor in 5 years.
It is my theory that the B21 may be using this new engine. This theory comes from their claim that the B21 would not require any support vehicles for long distance and duration missions.
It's far easier to believe that the B21 has low wing loading and high fuel capacity, or even that it is powered by a fission reactor, than it is to believe the B21 is powered by a fusion reactor. Do a little research and you'll soon find there's just no way to fit the equipment required to run a fusion reactor into an airplane of reasonable size. Heck, one article I read indicated the Lockheed design would require 30-to-100 TONS of shielding. (For reference, the GE9X, developed for the Boeing 777-X, weighs only 21,230lbs)
@@warpedweirdo Your spot on, It would always be the shielding that would doom it
The other possibility is that the B-21 is using the Rotation Detonation Engine (RDE) being developed at present, which is far more powerful and efficient than current jet engines.
@@warpedweirdo There are now multiple research projects at Universities around the world for development of efficient shielding materials for fusion reactors. So may be not too far away.
@@fishing953 They might also be impossible. Who knows? I don't, and you certainly don't either.
Getting your hopes up every time there's a new press release only results in you being let down more often than you otherwise would. You ought to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.
Noice peice. Glad u sited a bit. Super similar
Don't forget Doc Brown's fusion powered DeLorean.... 🤣
Yeah, but that fuel was absolute trash.
My A&P instructor at ISU was a Naval Submarine Nuclear Engineer before becoming a College Instructor. So according to this fellow, there's a Nuclear Powered Aircraft hangered in Atomic City Idaho that was built in the 60's. And, as you mentioned, crashing one of these isn't an option, so it was never mass produced. Besides, 60's Nuclear tech isn't anything like today's tech. I didn't know there was a project to bring Atomic Energy into aviation again. Interesting stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if DARPA had something flying already.
Was he referring to the TR-3B??
I thought that was slightly more recent than the 60's but the focus was now on its successor & now its upgrades
I had an uncle who was a Martin Marrietta engineer and he talked about various experiments that (his company had a hand in ?!?) had taken place with nuclear powered airplanes. Turned out to be impractical due to the weight of the shielding needed to keep pilot from "roasting" ...
He was fabulating. Only one example was made of the NB-36H, the only American aircraft ever made with a nuclear reactor. It was scrapped in 1957. Maybe the reactor is still stored, perhaps at the Naval Reactors Facility in Idaho Falls.
I would rather say that not much has happened in this field since the 1960's and I'd be much surprised if even DARPA has anything flying with nuclear propulsion today. It's simply not a great idea.
@skunkjobb ...more like flatulating! 💩 ...the NB36 carried an experimental nuclear reactor. It did NOT power the aircraft.
@@skunkjobb The notion that it's a bad idea makes sense.
If 1 of these aircraft were ever shot down, That would create a massive security crisis for the entire world. The idea of a hostile state getting hold of this tech then immediately becomes the number one security issue, not to mention the potential environmental disaster that would also be occurring...
Lockheed's perpetual motion machine is a decade out too.
In the 1958 movie "Frankenstein 1970" every house could be equipped with an atomic reactor.
Thought it was going to be... the plane that never has to refuel because it crashes every time
That would be the Anakin Skywalker series.
Right On
The MB36 mentioned at 2:33 is not nuclear powered and could not remain aloft "practically forever" as its duration was limited by the onboard supply of aviation gasoline required for engine function.
Imagine a Type 3 civilisation watching us and saying it looks like the children have found the matches! RIP Stanton Freedman 💓
Copied from A E Van Vogt
It's fusion Jim, but not as we know it... (Appros to the famous Star Trek misquote that just keeps on giving...)
Kirk to Scotty- An engine the size of a walnut powering the Enterprise.
TNG episode: the Survivors.👏👍💯
I hope to see this in my lifetime.
Well, especially crew rotation.
Amazing.
Hot dang! I spent longer reading the commments then watching the video thanks dark dude!
I have more concern for the possible explosion of one of these aircraft being shot down and the radiation and devastation that it could cause, than the possibility of one of these reactors ever being made.
This is HUGE. We won't need oil or natural gas for fuel. We won't need expensive aircraft carriers if planes can fly forever.
Simply crazy designs if not effective
Good timing, and proved me right in thinking something had already been in the pipeline, when I saw nasa saying they plan to have a nuclear propulsion drive ready to work on spacecraft by 2027...
@Michael Micah ermmmmm lol
What happens to the reactor that f the plane gets shot down?
What a statement , when the world needs it and may-be a little before that . Never a truer words spoken . Sad but true .
I seriously doubt Lockheed Martin has cracked the fusion energy problem.
Interesting observation. But, yikes!
pilot to pilot dialog while traveling at 80,000 feet and Mach 5 ........... Careful on passing that nuke, buddy.
I'm a bit curious. How would you turn the reactor "ON" and "OFF" for a mission ? Would you simply flip a switch or push a button ?
@norbertofontanez5550 can you elaborate please? What technology was displayed during the sts 51 recovery? I'm out of the loop on this one
@@logang6583 It is "Pie in the Sky". This concept has as much backing it up as IRON MAN's suit !!!
Robotech/Macross already imagined Thermonuclear jet engines in their Veritech fighters jets
Yeah but Reagan gave those trillion dollar fighters to Japan in the 80's. The US never saw a single one fielded.
And Battletech has Fusion Reactors in their Mechs
Asian Anime is better written sci fi since to consider how even British Literary compared to popular sci fi of America
I'm Alex Hollings, and this is air power
"frantically trying to figure out how to invest in Lockheed martin stocks"
Snake oil. Don't buy it.
Almost looks like it would fit inside a tic-tac.
Imagine hypersonic extended use and dog fighting. It's over in the near blink of an eye.
Hypersonic air-to-air missiles or lasers would be the only way to fight. (Maybe rail/coil guns as well but that's probably going to be complex.)
But don't hold your breath. These planes would be extremely rare, expensive and complicated. So much in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the US only has these planes in very limited numbers. Maybe China many years later but by then the US would probably be a generation or two ahead. And even then, commanders might be extremely hesitant to use them to intercept other hypersonic craft. They'll most likely be used for surveillance or tactical/strategic strikes.
If fusion is even possible to begin with. As a practical and sustainable fusion reactor has yet to have been made.
Human body would end up getting in the way of the technology. Limiting the design to help keep the human alive, not a pile of jelly.
@@Angl0sax0nknight Good point Thank you.
Yea, yea, just when is this fictional fusion reactor going to have a sustained controllable energy producing reaction?, fusion is always the answer but no one has built a stable energy producing reactor yet, the dream itself is self sustaining though.
Need it as fast as ufo
The reactor itself can be used as a directed energy weapon. The containment field can have a method of venting the core to eject a directed blast.
Wut? 'Directed energy', 'containment field'?!
You mean it can be used to spread radiation or as a dirty bomb?
If LM brings this engine to the market it would be a game changer for the aircraft industry, especially if you can retro fit it into current operational aircraft.
A single plane that doesn't use fuel is probably worth scrapping 10 that do. The profits made by designing new aircraft would probably outweigh the headache of retrofitting this onto a modern aircraft
Space even more.
These are perfect for hybrid jet/rocket.
They've been working on it for decades in one way or another. Don't bet on it.
Do some research before you embark on flights of fancy!
Even if Lockheed were actually producing these things, there is no way they'd fit onto any existing airliner; they'd be FAR to big.
@@warpedweirdo Just this last year I've seen a couple of contenders.
Technology is always five years away until it suddenly isn't. AI is apparently really really really really really good at magnets already. And also physics.
Finally using those graphic card physics accelerators to accelerate physics.
It's not if it hockey sticks, it's when.
Realy I like this powerful fighters jets
Fallout: "Hey, sounds like some Vault-Tec ideas we had..."
wow, thats incredible. time to invest heavy in LM?
This has been theoretical for well over 50 years. It's a matter of materials to contain it.
Yeah, I saw one of those on a Delorean once.
This isn't the first time non-fission nuclear energy was considered for aircraft propulsion. In February 2003, the non-peer reviewed New Scientist wrote about the possibility of an induced gamma emission powered airplane, a variant on nuclear propulsion. The idea was to utilize 178m2Hf (presumably due to its high energy to weight ratio) which would be triggered to release gamma rays that would heat air in a chamber for jet propulsion.
This is some fallout tech man who of the team building this played fallout 😂😂😂
The NB-36 was _not_ a nuclear-powered aircraft. It simply was a modified B-36 bomber with a live test nuclear reactor and shielding that did not power the aircraft. It was powered by the same jet and prop engines of a normal B-36.
nice one
Oh sure, it’s a military aircraft… we put ALL OUR SECRETS ON YT!!!😂😂😂😂
dude april fools day was last week
Uhhh one of the big hurdles of fusion, is the neutron radiation transmuting the materials in the reaction chamber into radioactive isotopes aka waste. And that stuff lasts a bit more than 12 years
Probably another 50 years out. When it becomes reality it will not end up in fighter jets until it’s in every ship and every large and long range aircraft first.
gen IV fission cycles such as the molten salt cycle are better for this
If interested I can furnish bibliography how nuclear can be used for FTL circumvention of light barrier and interdimensional travel between parallel universes?
Practical fusion reactors have been 10 years away from being 10 years away for 60 years. I don't exprct my granddaughter will live long enough to see this happen.
If it's actually possible, that would just my ideas for 7 generation fighters even more OP then it already is.
Lol! Do you make blueprints about jet fighters?
Shooting down a nuclear reactor would be a crime against humanity.
I had authored MIT peer reviewed articles on nuclear fusion rocket propulsion and by invite only had given a presentation on nuclear fusion propulsion from Prior Art to Spaceplanes for an engineering conference held inside MIT's Electrical Dept . on Vassar Street of Cambridge, MA.
What is important is rail transit should be replaced with Dynairships or Lifting Body Airships of Robert L Morrison's patented Lighter Than Air solid "SEAgel" and replace agriculture with fermentation single cell culture vats of electroporated Knall Gas bacteria.
Dr. Octopus was right after all!! I mean, Stan Lee!
Thumbnail show a SR-71 NOT a fighter jet
Nice
I can't think of a single thing that could go wrong.
If this type of engine becomes SSTO, like on COD:infinite warfare. There will always be a reason for war, like resources and colony, especially in space.
we need to create a photon barrier. it does not exist yet but we need it as the perfect insulator. what you call gravity at the quantum level is a photon barrier. light can not pass trough it.
7:33 Literally a DC or Marvel villain origin.
I must have missed something. Have we passed hydrogen fusion break even?
We have wayyy more future tech already with us than we realize.
How do you know? Exactly what?
@@skunkjobb faith, they have faith
Think of a fission powered bomber. The enemy wouldn’t dare shoot it down over their cities…
Right now everyone run around like Headless chickens and say it's ALIEN TECH. As many times as you want. PEACE
I was unaware that this technology has come so far. Wow.
It hasn't.
This is all based on Lockheed-Martin marketing fluff, and wishful thinking.
Lockheed's design, if feasible, is a long, long way from being small and light enough to realistically power an airplane.
The best fusion reactors in existence today consume far, far more energy than they produce. Lockheed has given us nothing to indicate that their design will be any better. Were they truly in "high beta" Lockheed would be trumpeting their success to the world and selling licenses. The promise of fusion power is still just vaporware.
@@warpedweirdo nuclear engines produce much more power than their weight such a nuclear subs but you also gotta think we’ve last really updated our nuclear engines in the 80’s I believe with the Pennsylvania class sub maybe there’s a more modern one but it takes a lot of time and money to get this right one mess up and a whole factory could be destroyed look at Chernobyl as an example
@@udpbooter The video was about FUSION reactors, not FISSION. There is a massive difference between the two reactions. One engineer estimated that Lockheed's reactor design would require 30-to-100 TONS of shielding. How much would all the other equipment weight? You've got the reactor itself, which will be very heavy. (Electromagnets are not light.) You need a cooling plant, to keep the reactor's magnets just a few degrees above absolute zero. You need particle accelerators to inject fuel and energy into the reactor. (More magnets for these, lots of weight.) You need a the steam turbines and generator to convert a major percentage of the reactor's output into electricity to run the particle accelerators and cooling system. (Massive weight there.) And you need the actual engine that converts whatever energy remains into thrust.
You can't just wave your hands and say weight isn't an issue because... power. No runway is going to stand up to the rocket thrust required to allow such a monstrosity to lift off vertically into the air, and I doubt pilots will put up with a 300mph takeoff roll. So... how big do the wings have to be to lift this bulk at a reasonable takeoff speed?
A C117III Globemaster has a max takeoff weight of 585,000lbs, and a 174' wingspan. The plane weighs 282,500lbs empty. The 4 engines weight 28,400lbs. A full load of fuel weighs about 23,500lbs. Let's round up to 52,000lbs total for fuel and propulsion.
Let's say the total weight of a fusion-based propulsion system and its fuel is only 150,000lbs. That's three times the weight of propulsion and fuel in the C117. Multiply the max takeoff weight of a C117 by three, you get 1,755,000 lbs max takeoff weight for a usefully performant nuclear cargo plane. Does that mean a 522' wingspan too? This is getting ridiculous.
The fusion propulsion system will need a power-to-weight ratio of about 3.1:1 to match that of the the jet engines and fuel on a fully-loaded C117. That's 465,000lbs of thrust. Hah, fat chance, but whatever.
I suppose you could just load the fusion power plant into a C117, cut total capacity, and fly it that way. But what a waste! There's no way the cost of the fusion power plant would be justified by the useful capacity of the C117 when compared to the much cheaper engines presently in use on the C117.
Not a single comment was made about the biggest problem of all NEUTRON SHIELDING. Without it we're not going anywhere with anything. Even that system would require either tons of reflective metals,water jackets or 6 ft of high-density concrete.
Sadly even if we develop the ability to produce clean energy for basically nothing. There will still be conflicts. Humans rarely get along for long stretches of time.
@Michael Micah No No I didn't win a giveaway I didn't enter.
We have thought that fusion was around the corner for so long that I wonder if it is just another faulty concept. Hard to say.
I heard in 5 years.... 20 years ago...
Just 20 years.....
They have been researching this since the 1950's with considerable amount money put into it in the 70s and 80s when they said that commercial use was 20 years away. LOL.
Faulty concept and always will be.
If they're saying they'll do it within 5 years they've already done it
Dense Plasma Focus with it simple design that exploits plasma decay rather than fighting it would easily scale to aircraft & as it's currently in the record holders for temperature
it holds out a tantalizing promise of achieving the Holy Grail of fusion energy, breaking the Coulomb barrier to achieve hydrogen-boron (pB11) aneutronic fusion.
Giggity
In the 60's or '70, one of the leading military hardware companies was working on a nuclear-powered aircraft in North Georgia! They failed and abandoned it! One of their major problems was coolant! Nuclear-powered vessels are at sea where the sea water can be used as the secondary coolant, an endless supply, with HO (heavy water) as the primary coolant! But water, though good at cooling and absorbing radiation is very heavy, much too heavy! IF Lockhead Martin somehow is able to solve the fusion problem (as well as the size problem) that would be great but succeed or fail, they will get a HUGE check from the US government! Us taxpayers are so generous even especially when we don't know about it!
No matter what it's inherently dangerous to stick a fusion or fission reactor on a war machine especially one that flies,There's got to be other people out there that think that this is totally stupid.
I think it's completely bonkers. Cargo ships? okay maybe. Airplanes? Hell no.
@@cardboardpig The Sea Is Full Of Nuclear Melt Downs Bomb Test & Nuclear Dumps Now! Our Cancer Lotto @ 30 CPM