just to be the odd one here since everyone is going on about either liquid combustible fuel or fusion. what about fission? one would assume that if Bruce could travel through time/dimensions he would have found a way to utilize fission without all the steam punk currently used. even without breaking space/time there have been efforts to do just that as early as the 1950's. and given that a boy scout in a garden shed can build a fission reactor small enough to fit in the trunk of his car one would assume the Morrow Project with far greater resources would be able to produce a lightweight nuclear fission power plant for their vehicles. (Ford managed to in 1958 after all.)

Fission reactors would be very problematic. The reactions always involve highly energetic neutrons. These would require a great deal of shielding to make safe making a portable, high energy one virtually impossible. Even fusion requires us to be very selective of the reactants to eliminate the problem of high energy neutrons.

Both Russia and the US tried to make fission powered aircraft. The reason they never built one was they could not figure out a way to not have the crew suffer from severe radiation poisoning. The advent of ICBMs made both side abandon the idea.

the shielding problem was solved during the feasibility testing. the problem they ran into with the nuclear just was the engine design caused it to irradiate the flight path due to the direct transfer heating system. also the idea of cooling the reactor with airflow from the engines meant that it would go Chernobyl if it were ever shut down.

granted this was the airforce during a time when MAD was thought to be a smart political move. one would think the Morrow Project would be wise enough to install another method of cooling the reactor that would also avoid the radioactive trail of destruction cause by direct air cooling.

A gen 4 Portable Fission Reactor (developed for the Navy by Westinghouse at Walt's Mills PA, by the way) fits in the length of a standard semi trailer. I saw one on it's way to the Navy a couple of years ago. Those power plants range in size from 10 to 50 megawatts. My father saw a "first?" generation version at Ft Greely, Alaska in 1962. It came in on a single tractor trailer. They went from burning 50,000 barrels (55gal each) of fuel oil a year, to ZERO barrels (for both power generation and heat). The unit is very portable. The technology has been around for a very long time (developed from shipboard units). The containment structure needed for fuel rod storage and to protect the users from any release of radiation in the event of an accident, would prevent the movement of these devices once they were put into use.

I think that these units would be stored in caches and that those caches would become "focal points" in game. Imagine what would be needed to construct the containment building (unless the planners constructed it underground at the cache site). You would be required to plan your movement based on the availability of this resource for power and stored units would be able to move to new locations as needed. The fuel rods could be an issue. I'm guessing that the planners could have figured out how to put those rods into cryo storage just like the players.

Storage of the U235 fuel rods would be pretty simple. Just surround them in boron to minimize the energetic neutrons. The half-life of U235 is about 700 million years. Until you start using it as fuel in the reactor, it should stay fresh for 150 years. Though with MP having portable fusion reactors, why would you use fission?

I liked Steve Jacksons take on Fusion Power for the Project. Attached is a .doc I pulled from another Morrow Project site years ago. It had several articles written by Jackson about the Project. I know it's all technobabble, but it's at least realistic sounding technobabble! He did a good writeup on the computers used in the vehicles and another on the numbers involved in the makeup of Morrow Project teams.

Cool post. Thanks and welcome aboard.

Thanks, good to be here. I'm looking forward to talking Morrow Project with fellow enthusiasts.

I too like the ideas in Steve Jackson articles (available at The Supply Bunker), though I think his littoral ship is not quite right. I have been working on a design for one and it is comparable in size, but when I run the numbers, carries way more cargo than Jackson lists.

Cost and greater availability. I think you would see both in use but fission would make more economic sense for smaller facilities.

It also makes a good believable alternative those in this thread arguing against the existence of cheap fusion reactors. These reactors were actually in existence in the 60's.

I think the greatest obstacle is sourcing the enriched uranium. Now that is not to say that the Project might not have built and stashed units like this in areas around the country. The intention being to release these to the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency under FEMA in the 3-5 year plan.