To: papertyger
More streamlined. Existing designs use steam pressure, which was no big deal when ships were coal or oil fired. Now that they’re nuclear, a separate internal structure supporting steam production has to be maintained. Magnetic launchers are less maintenance intensive and take up less space.
CC
13 posted on
01/30/2017 12:02:27 AM PST by
Celtic Conservative
(CC: purveyor of cryptic, snarky posts since December, 2000..)
To: Celtic Conservative
19 posted on
01/30/2017 1:27:00 AM PST by
papertyger
(The semantics define how we think.)
To: Celtic Conservative
Also, those reactors can power lasers. That will be about the only cost effective means of clearing drone swarms.
24 posted on
01/30/2017 3:36:31 AM PST by
glorgau
To: Celtic Conservative
Existing designs use steam pressure, which was no big deal when ships were coal or oil fired. Now that they’re nuclear, a separate internal structure supporting steam production has to be maintained. I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but reactor plants produce steam just like coal and oil plants. The Nimitz class has steam turbine propulsion like the non-nuclear Kennedy and Kitty Hawk classes. Just a different heat source.
43 posted on
01/30/2017 5:55:58 AM PST by
OA5599
To: Celtic Conservative
Existing designs use steam pressure, which was no big deal when ships were coal or oil fired. Now that they’re nuclear, a separate internal structure supporting steam production has to be maintained. Nuclear = reactor heat creates steam to drive turbines, no?
49 posted on
01/30/2017 7:01:29 AM PST by
Moltke
(Reasoning with a liberal is like watering a rock in the hope to grow a building)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson