4 ms·

After watching the video posted in the top comment, I have to wonder why we would keep dumping money and time into ITER. I know, don't put all your eggs in one

After watching the video posted in the top comment, I have to wonder why we would keep dumping money and time into ITER. I know, don't put all your eggs in one basket, but if the ITER design is so out-of-date, why wouldn't we just scrap it in favor of something that we could build 10 years faster and for much less money? It seems that if we can't make fusion work for SPARC it won't likely work in ITER either since they're both based on the same understanding of the physics. Am I wrong on that point? Is there some reason to think that ITER will succeed even if SPARC does not?

bpodgursky 6y ago
Well, "we" is very precise -- it's an EU program, and this reactor is not. As far as "why", you can take your pick of: - ITER's design is older, and maybe could be considered "lower risk" (that it will work at all) - Sunk cost - Academic jobs program - Money has already been allocated to member states, and none are happy to give that up - Big changes take time I'm not optimistic on stuff like this, so IMO it's another JWST, but it's not totally crazy to keep working on a plan (for a while) when new avenues of research arise.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Japan and US are members of the project. You should at least read basic info before speculating. https://www.iter.org/proj/Countries https://www.iter.org/proj/Countries
  - mbroncano 6y ago
    The EU is by far the biggest contributor though: > Europe is responsible for the largest portion of construction costs (45.6 percent); the remainder is shared equally by China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the US (9.1 percent each)
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Are you so sure ITER is obsolete? For instance, what prevents ITER to be upgraded with better magnets, like the ones used here, and to achieve higher power?
- woeirua 6y ago
  The video makes it pretty clear, magnetic field strength is directly related to the overall dimensions of the reactor. If you upgrade the magnets, then the physical dimensions would need to change as well, which at this point would be very difficult seeing as how they're already pouring concrete...
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    That was not my takeaway - I understood that it merely allows you to achieve higher magnetic field and plasma density in the same volume. It does not force you to use a smaller volume. Am I getting it wrong?
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
This is a vast oversimplification, and not a particularly useful way of thinking about it. See my other brief comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24634894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24634894
- woeirua 6y ago
  That's not a really good argument for continuing down this road. The US shuttered the large particle collider in Texas after it became apparent that it was going to be completely redundant with the LHC.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    That's also mistaken. SSC would have placed tighter bounds on several measurements. The LHC is about more than just discovering the higgs as a binary yes/no.

bpodgursky 6y ago

Well, "we" is very precise -- it's an EU program, and this reactor is not. As far as "why", you can take your pick of: - ITER's design is older, and maybe could be considered "lower risk" (that it will work at all) - Sunk cost - Academic jobs program - Money has already been allocated to member states, and none are happy to give that up - Big changes take time I'm not optimistic on stuff like this, so IMO it's another JWST, but it's not totally crazy to keep working on a plan (for a while) when new avenues of research arise.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Japan and US are members of the project. You should at least read basic info before speculating. https://www.iter.org/proj/Countries https://www.iter.org/proj/Countries
- mbroncano 6y ago
  The EU is by far the biggest contributor though: > Europe is responsible for the largest portion of construction costs (45.6 percent); the remainder is shared equally by China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the US (9.1 percent each)

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

Are you so sure ITER is obsolete? For instance, what prevents ITER to be upgraded with better magnets, like the ones used here, and to achieve higher power?

woeirua 6y ago
The video makes it pretty clear, magnetic field strength is directly related to the overall dimensions of the reactor. If you upgrade the magnets, then the physical dimensions would need to change as well, which at this point would be very difficult seeing as how they're already pouring concrete...
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  That was not my takeaway - I understood that it merely allows you to achieve higher magnetic field and plasma density in the same volume. It does not force you to use a smaller volume. Am I getting it wrong?

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

This is a vast oversimplification, and not a particularly useful way of thinking about it. See my other brief comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24634894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24634894

woeirua 6y ago
That's not a really good argument for continuing down this road. The US shuttered the large particle collider in Texas after it became apparent that it was going to be completely redundant with the LHC.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  That's also mistaken. SSC would have placed tighter bounds on several measurements. The LHC is about more than just discovering the higgs as a binary yes/no.