3 ms·
Well reading Government reports is not a great interest of mine, particularly ones that are nearly 50 years old, I'm just skeptical that they could accurately p
by adamsmith143 5y ago
Well reading Government reports is not a great interest of mine, particularly ones that are nearly 50 years old, I'm just skeptical that they could accurately plot the development of the technology when here we are 50 years later with fundamental Plasma Physics and Materials Science problems that need to be solved for the tech to work. I doubt that just blanket more funding would have allowed them to be solved 30 years faster.
It would be akin to AI researchers saying that if only they had more funding they could create an AGI this decade despite fundamental unknowns about how to build something like that in the first place.
- willis936 5y agoI'm so confused here. You asked for a breakdown of what technologies needed to be developed (invested in) and I gave you the exact breakdown. You doubt that investment wouldn't accelerate the development of those areas? So HTS discoveries and mass production fall out of the sky? No, they take money. Given money they, demonstrably, are developed. HTS is the sexy success story because it has been critical path, but other areas of engineering research have been known and the critical path for development has not changed in 50 years. Also, PPPL's 1976 report is a report to the government and public. It was not written by bureaucrats.