7 ms·

Current nuclear-powered ships are run by the world’s premier naval powers and protected by their own stealth or a huge array of armed escort ships. Have these

Current nuclear-powered ships are run by the world’s premier naval powers and protected by their own stealth or a huge array of armed escort ships. Have these guys factored in the cost of a task force of protective missile frigates, subs, and destroyers at each site?

preisschild 2mo ago
Why would a carrier battle group be a prerequisite for this? Capital ships will have escorts anyways, the propulsion system doesn't matter.
kingleopold 2mo ago
of course they did not calculate it! it will come later when they want to calculate real costs, they will release it after investor update
cbg0 2mo ago
That's a problem for the future, no need to worry investors with these silly questions.
- Iolaum 2mo ago
  Hey if you can externalize that cost, more money left for you and the investors !!!
citrin_ru 2mo ago
I doubt Russian nuclear ice breakers have naval escort. Until recently they operated within the coverage of on-shore long range SAM systems (but most of these SAM systems were moved elsewhere recently e.g. to protect oil refineries so Northern Sea Route is no longer protected).
- joshuanapoli 2mo ago
  I don’t think that anyone would want to steal an icebreaker, but a datacenter full of valuable equipment and interesting information is a more likely target.
  - Fluorescence 2mo ago
    Would a marine raid by ship be lower risk than a smash and grab by panel-van on land? I imagine land is a lower bar to entry, accessible to a much larger criminal base, but security response times and road surveillance is tough. I'm too much of a land-lubber to know how easy it is vanish from a coastal crime scene by ship. The sea... nowhere to hide but very big. Can satellites track you these days? If wanting to nab a container or two that's a big ship. Not much you could put in a minisub or sub-surface thing. A James Bond villain could cut the supports and drag the whole thing to the hollowed out mountain of their island lair. I need Michael Mann to make "Heat but on a boat" to educate me.
fuoqi 2mo ago
Nuclear submarines often operate without any escort. Russian nuclear icebreakers and floating SMRs also do not have heavy military escorts.
- glitchcrab 2mo ago
  > Nuclear submarines often operate without any escort. Correct. That's where the GPs comment regarding stealth comes into play.
- fc417fc802 2mo ago
  Attempt a hostile takeover and see how long the response takes. It doesn't matter how far away the assets are if they can either make it to your position before you accomplish your goal or else credibly hunt you down after the fact. I don't think "theft of nuclear material from a russian naval icebreaker" is a realistic possibility.
zombot 2mo ago
Don't be a killjoy, the bloom of harebrained ideas around AI should be celebrated!
_n_b_ 2mo ago
Forget security (which worries me less), the legalities of this are notoriously tricky (especially if the ship might ever leave the waters of one nation), and the economics are even worse. I wouldn’t touch civil maritime nuclear with a barge pole, and if I did, the clear win is decarbonizing big cargo ships.
- trencedamp 2mo ago
  Agreed, the largest container ships put out some serious pollution, going nuclear (a decades old proven technology for shipping) would be a massive improvement But the people championing nuclear data centers are not trying to solve climate change
AtlasBarfed 2mo ago
Proliferation resistant reactors should probably be used. Like.... LFTR Basically, the normal operation of the reactor doesn't allow the production of weapons-useful nuclear isotopes. You'll probably also need a smaller footprint reactor Like.... LFTR And you'll want something that can be turned on, shut off, and has natural anti-meltdown abilities in case hurricanes or other disasters threaten the ractor Like ... LFTR
- acidburnNSA 1mo ago
  LFTRs make readily-available (liquid-form) weapons-grade Uranium-233 during protactinium separation. They're the least proliferation resistant reactor known to man. LFTR has a far larger core than a PWR. Neutron diffusion length in water is 5 cm. In LFTR graphite moderator it's 16. Many reactors including modern SMR LWRs can cool themselves passively without backup power. Especially when floating in seawater. Highly recommend doing PWRs for this application. Disclaimer: I'm trying to do this with PWRs.
  - AtlasBarfed 1mo ago
    U-233: is this inaccurate? https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-claim-thorium-breeders-produce-no-weapons-grade-waste-Th-232-produces-fissile-U-233 https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-claim-thorium-br... I'm no expert on U enrichment, but if there's even just a little U-232 that mixes in with the U-233 then the gamma rays get pretty hard to handle? I guess the breeding process might produce a lot of pure U-233, but again to the point of the quora response... not a lot of U-233 was used in "real" weapons. I've never heard of MSRs being "large". The ORNL one fit in a closet, but that wasn't a breeder from thorium AFAIK. The penetration doesn't matter much if you have a blanket of Thorium to intercept neutrons.

preisschild 2mo ago

Why would a carrier battle group be a prerequisite for this? Capital ships will have escorts anyways, the propulsion system doesn't matter.

kingleopold 2mo ago

of course they did not calculate it! it will come later when they want to calculate real costs, they will release it after investor update

cbg0 2mo ago

That's a problem for the future, no need to worry investors with these silly questions.

Iolaum 2mo ago
Hey if you can externalize that cost, more money left for you and the investors !!!

citrin_ru 2mo ago

I doubt Russian nuclear ice breakers have naval escort. Until recently they operated within the coverage of on-shore long range SAM systems (but most of these SAM systems were moved elsewhere recently e.g. to protect oil refineries so Northern Sea Route is no longer protected).

joshuanapoli 2mo ago
I don’t think that anyone would want to steal an icebreaker, but a datacenter full of valuable equipment and interesting information is a more likely target.
- Fluorescence 2mo ago
  Would a marine raid by ship be lower risk than a smash and grab by panel-van on land? I imagine land is a lower bar to entry, accessible to a much larger criminal base, but security response times and road surveillance is tough. I'm too much of a land-lubber to know how easy it is vanish from a coastal crime scene by ship. The sea... nowhere to hide but very big. Can satellites track you these days? If wanting to nab a container or two that's a big ship. Not much you could put in a minisub or sub-surface thing. A James Bond villain could cut the supports and drag the whole thing to the hollowed out mountain of their island lair. I need Michael Mann to make "Heat but on a boat" to educate me.

fuoqi 2mo ago

Nuclear submarines often operate without any escort. Russian nuclear icebreakers and floating SMRs also do not have heavy military escorts.

glitchcrab 2mo ago
> Nuclear submarines often operate without any escort. Correct. That's where the GPs comment regarding stealth comes into play.
fc417fc802 2mo ago
Attempt a hostile takeover and see how long the response takes. It doesn't matter how far away the assets are if they can either make it to your position before you accomplish your goal or else credibly hunt you down after the fact. I don't think "theft of nuclear material from a russian naval icebreaker" is a realistic possibility.

zombot 2mo ago

Don't be a killjoy, the bloom of harebrained ideas around AI should be celebrated!

_n_b_ 2mo ago

Forget security (which worries me less), the legalities of this are notoriously tricky (especially if the ship might ever leave the waters of one nation), and the economics are even worse. I wouldn’t touch civil maritime nuclear with a barge pole, and if I did, the clear win is decarbonizing big cargo ships.

trencedamp 2mo ago
Agreed, the largest container ships put out some serious pollution, going nuclear (a decades old proven technology for shipping) would be a massive improvement But the people championing nuclear data centers are not trying to solve climate change

AtlasBarfed 2mo ago

Proliferation resistant reactors should probably be used. Like.... LFTR Basically, the normal operation of the reactor doesn't allow the production of weapons-useful nuclear isotopes. You'll probably also need a smaller footprint reactor Like.... LFTR And you'll want something that can be turned on, shut off, and has natural anti-meltdown abilities in case hurricanes or other disasters threaten the ractor Like ... LFTR

acidburnNSA 1mo ago
LFTRs make readily-available (liquid-form) weapons-grade Uranium-233 during protactinium separation. They're the least proliferation resistant reactor known to man. LFTR has a far larger core than a PWR. Neutron diffusion length in water is 5 cm. In LFTR graphite moderator it's 16. Many reactors including modern SMR LWRs can cool themselves passively without backup power. Especially when floating in seawater. Highly recommend doing PWRs for this application. Disclaimer: I'm trying to do this with PWRs.
- AtlasBarfed 1mo ago
  U-233: is this inaccurate? https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-claim-thorium-breeders-produce-no-weapons-grade-waste-Th-232-produces-fissile-U-233 https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-people-claim-thorium-br... I'm no expert on U enrichment, but if there's even just a little U-232 that mixes in with the U-233 then the gamma rays get pretty hard to handle? I guess the breeding process might produce a lot of pure U-233, but again to the point of the quora response... not a lot of U-233 was used in "real" weapons. I've never heard of MSRs being "large". The ORNL one fit in a closet, but that wasn't a breeder from thorium AFAIK. The penetration doesn't matter much if you have a blanket of Thorium to intercept neutrons.