Lockheed Martin - New Fusion Reactor design

But not by Lockheed. The Sea Shadow was rejected by the Navy back in the 1980s.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So again: you are saying you believe the odds are >50% that this will pan-out? And you believe Lockheed believes that? And -- bigger picture -- you would never take any bet with odds of success less than 50%?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah - the Sea Shadow was scrapped in part because the Pentagon didn't want to take a chance on it, and they were afraid it'd be too slow to keep up with other ships of the fleet (according to what I've read on it). I'm sure there's more to it than that, though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I didn't say anything about odds. I suggest you go back and re-read my posts. I have repeatedly used the word viable. Look up the meaning of the word.

 

Whereas companies like the one I work for invest in projects if there is a _chance_ they might be viable. Which, of course, is quite different. It's mainly a culture difference - no one gets fired if an off-the-wall project fails to deliver results.

Right. But they do throw money down the rat hole if that rat hole has a chance (even if it's a small chance) of making them money. It's why our company exists.

 

The word "viable" is not in question: what I'm questioning is this:

That suggests a will/will not binary proposition to me: an investment that you think will succeed is greater than 50% probability and one you think will not succeed is less than 50%, right? If not, i'm asking you to put it into odds because that's what MY statements were based on. Because what we are trying to ascertain here is the odds that this research will pan-out and my claim/prediction is that the odds are very low (much less than 50%) and that Lockheed knows it.

So again: please stop dodging and answer my questions.

 

Right: and my contention is that, contrary to Joe's claims, lockheed IS such a company.

 

Well if you want to understand, you need to a little better than that. I have answered your questions. Your failure to understand or even understand word meaning really isn't my problem and it isn't evasiveness on my part. It's your inability to comprehend reason. Among the things you do not understand is the notion of risk reward. There is an old rule in finance, the greater the risk, the greater the reward. Do you know what risk is? I don't think you do. You keep trying to but squares into circles.


It is pretty apparent you are not making investment decisions. Because if you were, you would understand. Contrary to your beliefs no successful company knowingly wastes money in projects they know will fail. No successful investor knowingly invests in projects they know will fail. Now if you want to believe otherwise, go for it. But you will never be a successful investor investing in projects you know will fail.

 

No, it isn't contrary to what I have been saying. You kind of skimmed over the part about "if there is a chance". It gets back to that word "viable" again. Some companies are more risk tolerant than others. But no successful company or investor knowingly throws their money down the toilet as you have repeatedly asserted in this thread.

 

So you have proof that lockheed martin cannot possibly make this work, then?

 

God, how about paying some attention to the discussion? What a radical idea!

 

fuck it, nevermind... not worth my goddamn time