Of course, one wonders why this very large company requires investors to create this fusion plant.

One unintentionally funny (as well as braindead) remark is that their 100MW fusion reactor is "only a tenth of the size of a nuclear reactor." Of course, it also produces less than a tenth of the power a conventional reactor produces !!! and there are compact modular reactors that are not very large that produce a lot more than 100MW. I don't know where they got the idea that shipboard reactors are

replaced "regularly." Modern reactors last over 60 years. These claims are also entirely misleading in that they pit their fusion reactor against current conventional reactors. But that's pure BS - in less than 10 years, Transatomic Power' molten salt reactors will have made current reactors totally obsolete - THESE are the fission reactors Lockheed will be up against. And they CAN burn nuclear wastes (which the fusion reactor cannot do), they can also operate in a load following capacity; they have near zero fuel costs and essentially unlimited fuel supplies; they are inherently safe, probably safer than the fusion reactor; they are cheap to build and can be sized large or small. Transatomic Powr does not require any 10 years to build one of their reactors - the basic technology is decades old and well understood - Transatomic Power simply came up with new metals and chemicals that make the reactor practical, which was the only obstacle to commercialization years ago. This Lockheed claim has been floating around for years now. I am positive Transatomic Power's molten salt reactors will succeed. Lockheed's claims sound like the ones they had about EESTOR storage devices. Very skeptical of anything Lockheed says. Sounds like they want others to risk the money on this device rather than themselves. That shows a strong lack of confidence.