SCO reactor project

reply to: 1947boomer

Boomer,

Thank you for your excellent posts as usual.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You think that the project name could be a descriptor? Its a pretty interesting name.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I think it's engineers having fun with the name. It almost certainly has something to do with what they're going for.

I think people would find this thread a lot more stimulating if they had caught onto what the rectors for. Ah well the clues were left. Up to them to figure it out. Most astounding thing is that this reactor and whatever project its for is most likely well underway. Which makes things even more exciting.

Like you said interesting times we live in.

a reply to: BASSPLYR


Sorry some of us could not read the actual RFI!

Finally got on The Drive too! Even they could not keep it straight!

SCO first announced that they were looking for “information on innovative technologies and approaches” relating to a possible future “small mobile nuclear reactor prototype design” on FedBizOpps, the U.S. government’s main contracting website, on Jan. 18, 2019. The organization posted an amended version of the notice, which outlines a “multi-phase prototype project” as part of what it is calling Project Dithulium, four days later.

Then later in the same article...

The Army is certainly watching the SCO’s Project Dithulium, if it isn’t involved in it directly. In October 2018, the service put out its own report on the potential uses of nuclear power on the battlefield.

thedrive - The U.S. Military Wants Tiny Road Mobile Nuclear Reactors That Can Fit In A C-17.



I read it the other way the second pass before realizing it was anagrammed up in the first!

One of these days, Alice, Bang! Zoom!...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Read the RFI carefully. The fuel is a very interesting clue. This isn't just spending money to spend money. There's a very good reason for this, and it will prove very useful long term.

Isnt this just that boeing/lockheed fusion reactor going white world?

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

You think that the project name could be a descriptor? Its a pretty interesting name.

i think operation zepram cochraine would be better.

a reply to: yuppa

That was the Star Trek character created by the writer Gene L. Coon.
IRL Cochrane was working on Ion propulsion back in the 1930's but the official story line claims:
On April 5, 2063, Cochrane made Earth's first warp flight, playing Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride" during blast-off.
Magic Carpet ride was a song inspired by the painting "The Broken Bridge and the Dream" circa 1945.

10 megawatts is a lot of beam!!, I'm not sure but what this is intended to be a more mundane terrestrial bound fission reactor using an efficient gas cycle that can be throttled.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Read the RFI carefully. The fuel is a very interesting clue. This isn't just spending money to spend money. There's a very good reason for this, and it will prove very useful long term.

Isnt this just that boeing/lockheed fusion reactor going white world?

No. The fuel type that is being specified here is very definitely an advanced fission fuel, intended for use in a Small Modular Reactor. That’s a fission reactor, not a fusion reactor.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I think people would find this thread a lot more stimulating if they had caught onto what the rectors for. Ah well the clues were left. Up to them to figure it out. Most astounding thing is that this reactor and whatever project its for is most likely well underway. Which makes things even more exciting.

Like you said interesting times we live in.

Undoubtedly, there will be classified projects for which this kind of power plant will be used.

However, the motivation for developing this capability is not very mysterious or hard to figure out. For example, here’s a link to a study that was done a few years ago looking at the feasibility of powering some Air Force bases in Colorado and/or Alaska with Small Modular Reactors.

www.osti.gov...

As the study report notes, the DOD has been operating under an Executive Order since 2015 requiring it to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. The DOD is the single biggest consumer of energy in the US economy, so you can’t make a dent in reducing fossil fuel use without the DOD taking a leading role. Advanced reactors are specifically allowed as one solution. So, to first order, the SCO is simply following current policy.

Beyond that however, use of non-fossil fuel power sources in combat theaters will have a strong multiplication effect on reducing the number of transportation missions required to support combat. I remember reading somewhere that more than half of all activities in Iraq and Afghanistan were simply to transport fuel and water.

And beyond that, if the DOD is an early adopter of this technology, it will jump start the civilian market. Analogous to how the Air Force purchasing the KC-135 allowed Boeing to come to market with the 707.

Deuterium would be good for initial source strength for initial criticality. Exotic low enriched fuel blends will be better for really small, constant output reactors. The biggest issue in design is going to be the heat sink. If they can get over that issue then, I’d say this project is actually relatively simple.

Hopefully they learned a thing or two about giving other branches of the military reactors, from SL-1. And to the person who asked about shipboard reactors, yes they are substantially higher than 10 MW. Also, being surrounded by water is actually a huge problem for naval reactors.

I don't know what the forum's rule is on "necro posting"
However I came across something interesting related to what I was talking about earlier in this topic.

physicsworld.com...

For the first time, these parameters satisfied the conditions that theorists predict should allow nuclear fusion within a Z-pinch. FuZE was able to sustain a stable plasma for 16 µs, some 5000 times longer than the times achieved in static plasmas outside of a Z-pinch. To confirm that fusion had been achieved, Zhang and colleagues measured their plasma’s neutron yield using a plastic scintillator, which converts incident neutrons into photons, coupled to a photomultiplier. The setup revealed that a period of quasi-steady-state neutron production endured for around 5 µs during the time that a stable plasma was maintained.

en.wikipedia.org...
So there is a trade off of emissions of neutrons for photons by using plastic scintilators. meaning that there is an energy conversion, or at least a wave length change to the visible spectrum making it more likely to be able to convert these photons through photovoltaic to an electrical current, without the need for a massive heat reservoir and water for steam generation.

Again, I am probably grasping at straws, but would love some feedback from someone who actually knows about this.