3 ms·

I feel like you can replace "quantum computing" in this rant with almost any other major gov science initiative and it would still have relevance. Lunar coloniz

I feel like you can replace "quantum computing" in this rant with almost any other major gov science initiative and it would still have relevance. Lunar colonization. Nuclear fusion. Genome therapy. All 5 years away since 2000. All require major materials breakthroughs. All hyped in the glossy popular media ;)

hprotagonist 6y ago
Genome therapy is here, and has been for a while if you count car-t. the other two are pipe dreams though.
- ampdepolymerase 6y ago
  Lunar colonization is a economic and political challenge, not (really) a scientific one.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    I would even say that underneath the political and economic challenges is a lack of will in the first place.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Establishing an actual colony on the moon instead of just a temporary outpost will require a huge amount of basic scientific research. This goes way beyond just economics and politics? For example how do we keep people healthy and prevent bone mineral loss and muscle wasting in low gravity? How do we mitigate the effects of increased background radiation? Any real sustainable colony will need people working out on the surface so they can't just hide in underground tunnels.
    - ampdepolymerase 6y ago
      We could easily have done that research in the 20 years after the cold war. These are not research that requires state of the art technology (except for radiation shielding which requires good materials science). But we didn't, because there was no immediate demand.
mchusma 6y ago
Nuclear Fusion has made significant progress, and generally speaking the joke has been "its 20 years away and always will be". Only starting 2020 did people start to estimate shorter timelines, with ITER expecting to have net positive energy between 2025 and 2035. There are several fusion startups/projects looking to beat ITER, including SPARC and Commonwealth. In 2020 a detailed peer review of the system could find no major obvious flaws. SPARC is hoping to be done by 2025 with net postiive energy probably a few years after that. Neither ITER nor SPARC require any materials breakthroughs, but do rely on breakthroughs made over the last 30 years. People's expectations about a faster fusion timeline were always based on funding that never manifested. See https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png We are in the ballpark of 1976 timeline expectations given the amount of spending we committed to fusion.
- nl 6y ago
  ITER was supposed to achieve fusion in 2016, but that has now been delayed until 2026: When ITER first received formal approval in 2006, it was slated to first achieve fusion in 2016, a date which has since been pushed back at least 10 years. Issues with component construction and design disagreements have been blamed for the delays.[1] > People's expectations about a faster fusion timeline were always based on funding that never manifested. ITER was initially budgeted €5 billion which was provided, then jumped to €15 billion, which was also provided: The project was officially begun in 2006 with an estimated cost of €5 billion and date for the beginning of operations—or first plasma—in 2016. Those figures quickly changed to €15 billion and 2019, but confidence in those numbers has eroded over the years.[2] And yet the timeline just for ITER to do an experimental run is still 10 years, and then: If everything goes to plan, ITER will pave the way for another reactor, called DEMO, which will expand the technologies perfected by ITER to an industrial scale, and hopefully prove that nuclear fusion is a viable source of energy.[2] > See https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png Very unclear where these predictions and budget numbers come from. Apart from the 1976 budget, the rest just seem to be made up, and the end dates seem arbitrary. [1] https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/why-nuclear-fusion-is-always-30-years-away https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/why-nuclear-fusi... [2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/iter-fusion-project-take-least-6-years-longer-planned https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/iter-fusion-project-...
diffeomorphism 6y ago
For fusion that seems to be misleading. It is "always" that long away because of massive cuts in funding ensuring that it stays that way. http://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png http://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://old.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/5budos/fusion_is_always_50_years_away_for_a_reason/ https://old.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/5budos/fusion_is_al... If funding had not been cut to far below "fusion never" we would have been done decades ago.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
CyberRabbi 6y ago
On the point of the media. Of course some blame can be put on the researchers but science media also presents perverse incentives for them to popularize their findings by extrapolating and speculating on sensational consequences.

hprotagonist 6y ago

Genome therapy is here, and has been for a while if you count car-t. the other two are pipe dreams though.

ampdepolymerase 6y ago
Lunar colonization is a economic and political challenge, not (really) a scientific one.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  I would even say that underneath the political and economic challenges is a lack of will in the first place.
- nradov 6y ago
  Establishing an actual colony on the moon instead of just a temporary outpost will require a huge amount of basic scientific research. This goes way beyond just economics and politics? For example how do we keep people healthy and prevent bone mineral loss and muscle wasting in low gravity? How do we mitigate the effects of increased background radiation? Any real sustainable colony will need people working out on the surface so they can't just hide in underground tunnels.
  - ampdepolymerase 6y ago
    We could easily have done that research in the 20 years after the cold war. These are not research that requires state of the art technology (except for radiation shielding which requires good materials science). But we didn't, because there was no immediate demand.

mchusma 6y ago

Nuclear Fusion has made significant progress, and generally speaking the joke has been "its 20 years away and always will be". Only starting 2020 did people start to estimate shorter timelines, with ITER expecting to have net positive energy between 2025 and 2035. There are several fusion startups/projects looking to beat ITER, including SPARC and Commonwealth. In 2020 a detailed peer review of the system could find no major obvious flaws. SPARC is hoping to be done by 2025 with net postiive energy probably a few years after that. Neither ITER nor SPARC require any materials breakthroughs, but do rely on breakthroughs made over the last 30 years. People's expectations about a faster fusion timeline were always based on funding that never manifested. See https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png We are in the ballpark of 1976 timeline expectations given the amount of spending we committed to fusion.

nl 6y ago
ITER was supposed to achieve fusion in 2016, but that has now been delayed until 2026: When ITER first received formal approval in 2006, it was slated to first achieve fusion in 2016, a date which has since been pushed back at least 10 years. Issues with component construction and design disagreements have been blamed for the delays.[1] > People's expectations about a faster fusion timeline were always based on funding that never manifested. ITER was initially budgeted €5 billion which was provided, then jumped to €15 billion, which was also provided: The project was officially begun in 2006 with an estimated cost of €5 billion and date for the beginning of operations—or first plasma—in 2016. Those figures quickly changed to €15 billion and 2019, but confidence in those numbers has eroded over the years.[2] And yet the timeline just for ITER to do an experimental run is still 10 years, and then: If everything goes to plan, ITER will pave the way for another reactor, called DEMO, which will expand the technologies perfected by ITER to an industrial scale, and hopefully prove that nuclear fusion is a viable source of energy.[2] > See https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png Very unclear where these predictions and budget numbers come from. Apart from the 1976 budget, the rest just seem to be made up, and the end dates seem arbitrary. [1] https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/why-nuclear-fusion-is-always-30-years-away https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/why-nuclear-fusi... [2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/iter-fusion-project-take-least-6-years-longer-planned https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/iter-fusion-project-...

diffeomorphism 6y ago

For fusion that seems to be misleading. It is "always" that long away because of massive cuts in funding ensuring that it stays that way. http://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png http://i.imgur.com/3vYLQmm.png https://old.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/5budos/fusion_is_always_50_years_away_for_a_reason/ https://old.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/5budos/fusion_is_al... If funding had not been cut to far below "fusion never" we would have been done decades ago.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

CyberRabbi 6y ago

On the point of the media. Of course some blame can be put on the researchers but science media also presents perverse incentives for them to popularize their findings by extrapolating and speculating on sensational consequences.