USAF Energy Vision
USAF Energy Vision
Energy Horizons
United States Air Force
Energy S&T Vision
2011-2026
AF/ST TR 11-01
31 January 2012
Not one peep about p-11B fusion, Polywell, FRC, DPF or LENR.
Sad. What a miserable waste of my tax dollars.
United States Air Force
Energy S&T Vision
2011-2026
AF/ST TR 11-01
31 January 2012
Not one peep about p-11B fusion, Polywell, FRC, DPF or LENR.
Sad. What a miserable waste of my tax dollars.
Re: USAF Energy Vision
Is this a good place to start a Navy vs AF fight? That said it is sad.DeltaV wrote:Energy Horizons
United States Air Force
Energy S&T Vision
2011-2026
AF/ST TR 11-01
31 January 2012
Not one peep about p-11B fusion, Polywell, FRC, DPF or LENR.
Sad. What a miserable waste of my tax dollars.
OTOH when the Polywell stuff was fresh ('07 IIRC) I had a group of exAF officers who are now R&D guys contact me.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: USAF Energy Vision
These things are showing promise. But until I see working reactors, I think they still must be considered speculative. At least the Navy is funding the most promising of these, which is the polywell.DeltaV wrote:Energy Horizons
United States Air Force
Energy S&T Vision
2011-2026
AF/ST TR 11-01
31 January 2012
Not one peep about p-11B fusion, Polywell, FRC, DPF or LENR.
Sad. What a miserable waste of my tax dollars.
It is the nature of bureaucracy to be averse to any kind of innovation or risk.
What I would like to see is more on Thorium nuclear power (LFTR, MSR, etc.) as well as the various small modular reactors being commercialized. If stuff like polywell or LENR do not show up, advanced fission power is the future of energy production.
I for one would be ecstatic if both solutions prove practical...Skipjack wrote:Actually, I (as do Slough, Rostoker, Art Carlson and others) that FRC- colliding beam reactors have a higher chance of success than Polywell, even.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
--Philip K. Dick
--Philip K. Dick
-
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Like Pluto? Be fun.On a tangent, fusion ramjet cruise missile with an unshielded reactor?
According to all we know at this point, you can probably fit a polywell on a plane the size of a 747. Your payload will suffer greatly however. Likely a polywell world would see a more flying wing type configuration to increase usable volume while keeping within the limits of airports, at least until they can expand to the new, permanent system.
Evil is evil, no matter how small
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:47 pm
- Contact:
I see the project limits itself to goals achievable within 15 years.
The F-22 took 24 years from initial requirement to entering service. Development of the Nimitz class would only just barely fit in that time period.
I understand the USAF wanting to identify achievable goals, but I wonder if they understand that real improvement takes time; and usually longer than 15 years.
The F-22 took 24 years from initial requirement to entering service. Development of the Nimitz class would only just barely fit in that time period.
I understand the USAF wanting to identify achievable goals, but I wonder if they understand that real improvement takes time; and usually longer than 15 years.
Some light reading material: Half Way To Anywhere, The Rocket Company, Space Technology, The High Fronter, Of Wolves And Men, Light On Shattered Water, The Ultimate Weapon, any Janes Guide, GURPS Bio-Tech, ALIENS Technical Manual, The God Delusion.