Reply To: Investment risk

[Joeviocoe]

Tulse wrote:

The Navy could really benefit from Aneutronic fusion because of the lack of need for sheilding and even better fueling (no need for tritium breeding) and waste (no activation).

That’s true, but of all the armed forces they have the least issue with heavy shielding and radiation handling. Their craft can easily deal with both, far more so than the Air Force or Army. (After all, they are the only branch which currently operates nuclear-powered vehicles.)

I would think the Army would be even more eager for clean, easily-transportable generators (for bases), and the Air Force as well (light enough reactors could power an unmanned bomber for months, and a purely electric plane would have a negligible heat signature).

The Army has access to large amounts of petroleum based fuel. So their efforts to have a nuclear program ended early in 1977 and was thought to be a “Solution in search of a problem”. The Navy, especially the submarine fleet, endangers itself when it needs to be resupplied. The Army is does have some recent problems getting constant supplies of fuel… but it is far cheaper and easier to secure petroleum supply and transport than it is to deal with building a Nuclear plant in someone else’s country.

I don’t think even the lightest of fission reactors would work yet for bombers…
In such a tight package, the shielding must be thick and heavy to protect the electronics/avionics. Going unmanned doesn’t remove the need for shielding.
RTG’s mabye. Possibly even battery UAVs recharged from ground or space via microwave.