3 ms·

There are nuggets of truth in here but they are combined in a way that makes no sense in net. Eg. it's true that some fusion programs are rooted in nuclear wea

There are nuggets of truth in here but they are combined in a way that makes no sense in net. Eg. it's true that some fusion programs are rooted in nuclear weapons work, but that cannot be easily said of ITER, because if that were the goal we'd have FIRE instead, the Fusion Ignition Research Experiment that used actively cooled conductors and higher chamber pressures. (And then also a bunch more since FIRE would be built.) ITER's advantages don't make sense if the goal isn't actually sustained fusion. Yes, ITER is slow, over budget, and had delays, as is typical of project of its scope, but this doesn't mean it's a fake project any more than James Webb or SLS. Not delivering power doesn't mean it's fake science any more than the LHC. Certainly its jobs program aspect doesn't transfer to new fusion startups, which are in large part privately funded.

ncmncm 6y ago
ITER is, as you say, slow, over budget, and had delays, and never promises ever to deliver one solitary erg of energy, commercially viable or otherwise; yet it is planned to consume all fusion research money well into the 2050s, and with delays, beyond. FIRE would have failed more spectacularly, and then the gravy train might have dried up. To say a fusion program is "rooted in nuclear weapons work" suggests it is meant to produce results of interest for weapons, but that is wholly unnecessary. The connection to weapons work is more tenuous. An ITER physicist has no job prospects besides either ITER or weapons work. Without a stable of ITER physicists, who would be available to hire for weapons work, whenever it pops up? I think James-Webb has a telescope built and waiting to be scheduled for launch, so there's that. SLS certainly is a fake project. I will go on record, here, forecasting that SLS will never launch one solitary astronaut. It never had a purpose to exist other than to maintain employment in a sufficiently wide variety of Congressional districts. The planned "lunar station" had no reason to exist except that it was the farthest SLS could get to. Once Starship is flying, in a year or three, even the US Congress will find it difficult to continue funding SLS. Most fusion startups, like 90+% of startups, are about diverting VC money into ready pockets with no expectation of return. Principals of startups are mostly unaware of their role in this dance.
- Veedrac 6y ago
  Your argument seems self-refuting, tantamount to claiming that politicians know more about fusion physics than fusion physicists do, and through illegitimate means had convinced the body of scientists that ITER and FIRE were physically sound. (For sure, neither approach is directly an economically viable path to fusion, but that is not the intent.) Saying that SLS will be too late to the market—certainly a reasonable stance, and I'd happily have it cancelled—is not the same as saying it is fake. Similarly, if James Webb is real because it is almost ready for launch, then it is possible for something to be real in spite of being years overdue and multiples over budget.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    No detail of SLS was dictated by any plausible mission. It had to have strap-on multi-part solid boosters solely to keep Morton Thiokol busy. It had to have SSME-style engines to keep somebody else busy; but not use actual SSMEs, for the same reason. They had to be super-expensive engines designed for multiple uses even though they would have been scuttled after a single use. Things can be "late to market" without being fake, but being late to market is an operational requirement on fake things such as SLS. As noted, military-industrial concerns demand funding go exclusively to hot-neutron schemes. The politicians' interest is only that billions of dollars be disbursed to obscure entities over a long period that can generate sufficient regular, reliable, legitimate-appearing kickbacks.

ncmncm 6y ago

ITER is, as you say, slow, over budget, and had delays, and never promises ever to deliver one solitary erg of energy, commercially viable or otherwise; yet it is planned to consume all fusion research money well into the 2050s, and with delays, beyond. FIRE would have failed more spectacularly, and then the gravy train might have dried up. To say a fusion program is "rooted in nuclear weapons work" suggests it is meant to produce results of interest for weapons, but that is wholly unnecessary. The connection to weapons work is more tenuous. An ITER physicist has no job prospects besides either ITER or weapons work. Without a stable of ITER physicists, who would be available to hire for weapons work, whenever it pops up? I think James-Webb has a telescope built and waiting to be scheduled for launch, so there's that. SLS certainly is a fake project. I will go on record, here, forecasting that SLS will never launch one solitary astronaut. It never had a purpose to exist other than to maintain employment in a sufficiently wide variety of Congressional districts. The planned "lunar station" had no reason to exist except that it was the farthest SLS could get to. Once Starship is flying, in a year or three, even the US Congress will find it difficult to continue funding SLS. Most fusion startups, like 90+% of startups, are about diverting VC money into ready pockets with no expectation of return. Principals of startups are mostly unaware of their role in this dance.

Veedrac 6y ago
Your argument seems self-refuting, tantamount to claiming that politicians know more about fusion physics than fusion physicists do, and through illegitimate means had convinced the body of scientists that ITER and FIRE were physically sound. (For sure, neither approach is directly an economically viable path to fusion, but that is not the intent.) Saying that SLS will be too late to the market—certainly a reasonable stance, and I'd happily have it cancelled—is not the same as saying it is fake. Similarly, if James Webb is real because it is almost ready for launch, then it is possible for something to be real in spite of being years overdue and multiples over budget.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  No detail of SLS was dictated by any plausible mission. It had to have strap-on multi-part solid boosters solely to keep Morton Thiokol busy. It had to have SSME-style engines to keep somebody else busy; but not use actual SSMEs, for the same reason. They had to be super-expensive engines designed for multiple uses even though they would have been scuttled after a single use. Things can be "late to market" without being fake, but being late to market is an operational requirement on fake things such as SLS. As noted, military-industrial concerns demand funding go exclusively to hot-neutron schemes. The politicians' interest is only that billions of dollars be disbursed to obscure entities over a long period that can generate sufficient regular, reliable, legitimate-appearing kickbacks.