3 ms·

It is hard for me to conceive of the steps required in these projects that add up to years - just in assembly. Is it due to precision requirements being diffic

It is hard for me to conceive of the steps required in these projects that add up to years - just in assembly. Is it due to precision requirements being difficult to achieve? Supply chain delays for custom parts? Lots of experimental runs that require dis-assembly and tuning?

foxrider 6y ago
Making complicates shapes these sizes is very very hard. And the fact that it's a one-off project for now makes it so much more expensive and hard. From my understanding somewhere some factory would have to dedicate a whole production line just to this one device.
mhh__ 6y ago
There is no supply chain for a lot of the parts in these projects. Even for a board that doesn't require a custom chip (You can buy some ridiculous high-spec chips off the shelf these days), the silicon will be expensive, the PCB will have to be made to a very high tolerance etc. To top it all off you may require engineers who are not only experts in their own field but also require some in depth knowledge of aspects of theoretical physics (i.e. If you are looking for new particles your usual rules of thumb may not work) which for the most part engineers don't go anywhere near in their normal education. On top of all the custom hardware you have to be able to set up the infrastructure to use your shiny new hardware, places for staff to work and then land to put it all on (And this is on top of the cost of actually building the main experiment). In short, everything involved in experimental science is expensive.
the8472 6y ago
One part of it is that it's a research project. The other part is the bureaucracy of international cooperation and the pieces being built all over the world according to a huge centrally managed specification. It's not like SpaceX that starts with a small design and then builds incrementally larger versions to have something to show in the meantime. It's from 0 to finished product.
- pezezin 6y ago
  I'm currently working for IFMIF (sister project of ITER), and I know some people who work or worked for ITER, and yes, the bureaucracy is an absolute nightmare. Coordinating so many countries with so many different working cultures is really difficult. On the other hand, we DO build incrementally larger versions. The machine is built and tested in stages, it would be impossible to build such complex machines in just one go.
  - the8472 6y ago
    > On the other hand, we DO build incrementally larger versions. You're referring to JET? Does ITER benefit from production facilities that were used for it?
    - pezezin 6y ago
      First of all, I'm just a computer guy who joined this field two years ago. I still don't know much, so please excuse my ignorance. Regarding JET and ITER, according to what I heard from my coworkers, all the knowledge that was gained at JET is being used for ITER. I guess many of the productions facilities are being reused too, but I would need to ask them. Regarding our project (IFMIF), we are building a linear accelerator to simulate the neutron flux inside a fusion reactor and study the behavior of different materials. The accelerator is composed of an injector, several acceleration stages, and a beam dump. First the injector and the beam dump were installed and tested, and then all the other stages are being installed and tested incrementally. But a linear accelerator is a very different machine from a tokamak.
      - the8472 6y ago
        I'm asking because afaik (and that's fairly superficial knowledge) is that JET is mostly a european project while ITER is built internationally and the production is intentionally assigned fairly (to spread experience to contributors) rather than with a focus on efficiency. So that implies to me that there would be many new manufacturing places all over the globe. In other words it's made from scratch, more or less.

foxrider 6y ago

Making complicates shapes these sizes is very very hard. And the fact that it's a one-off project for now makes it so much more expensive and hard. From my understanding somewhere some factory would have to dedicate a whole production line just to this one device.

mhh__ 6y ago

There is no supply chain for a lot of the parts in these projects. Even for a board that doesn't require a custom chip (You can buy some ridiculous high-spec chips off the shelf these days), the silicon will be expensive, the PCB will have to be made to a very high tolerance etc. To top it all off you may require engineers who are not only experts in their own field but also require some in depth knowledge of aspects of theoretical physics (i.e. If you are looking for new particles your usual rules of thumb may not work) which for the most part engineers don't go anywhere near in their normal education. On top of all the custom hardware you have to be able to set up the infrastructure to use your shiny new hardware, places for staff to work and then land to put it all on (And this is on top of the cost of actually building the main experiment). In short, everything involved in experimental science is expensive.

the8472 6y ago

One part of it is that it's a research project. The other part is the bureaucracy of international cooperation and the pieces being built all over the world according to a huge centrally managed specification. It's not like SpaceX that starts with a small design and then builds incrementally larger versions to have something to show in the meantime. It's from 0 to finished product.

pezezin 6y ago
I'm currently working for IFMIF (sister project of ITER), and I know some people who work or worked for ITER, and yes, the bureaucracy is an absolute nightmare. Coordinating so many countries with so many different working cultures is really difficult. On the other hand, we DO build incrementally larger versions. The machine is built and tested in stages, it would be impossible to build such complex machines in just one go.
- the8472 6y ago
  > On the other hand, we DO build incrementally larger versions. You're referring to JET? Does ITER benefit from production facilities that were used for it?
  - pezezin 6y ago
    First of all, I'm just a computer guy who joined this field two years ago. I still don't know much, so please excuse my ignorance. Regarding JET and ITER, according to what I heard from my coworkers, all the knowledge that was gained at JET is being used for ITER. I guess many of the productions facilities are being reused too, but I would need to ask them. Regarding our project (IFMIF), we are building a linear accelerator to simulate the neutron flux inside a fusion reactor and study the behavior of different materials. The accelerator is composed of an injector, several acceleration stages, and a beam dump. First the injector and the beam dump were installed and tested, and then all the other stages are being installed and tested incrementally. But a linear accelerator is a very different machine from a tokamak.
    - the8472 6y ago
      I'm asking because afaik (and that's fairly superficial knowledge) is that JET is mostly a european project while ITER is built internationally and the production is intentionally assigned fairly (to spread experience to contributors) rather than with a focus on efficiency. So that implies to me that there would be many new manufacturing places all over the globe. In other words it's made from scratch, more or less.