5 ms·

That was not a real question, it was a subconscious plea for elon musk to take over and make it work. "Shooting it into space" is a reference to how SpaceX dis

by sdwr 3y ago

That was not a real question, it was a subconscious plea for elon musk to take over and make it work. "Shooting it into space" is a reference to how SpaceX disrupted the rocket industry through a "fail fast" mentality, aggressive goals, and sheer force of will.

Eji1700 3y ago
This take is even more baffling to me than the original question.
- sdwr 3y ago
  Let me break my logic down: Assumptions: --------------------- 1. The average commenter here (me!) knows a little about nuclear fusion, and a lot about online tech news. 2. There are no new ideas. Background: ------------------------ This big science project is overbudget, making incremental progress, and the timeline is stretching to forever. That is incredibly similar to the state of rockets 10 years ago - publically funded, making little progress. Leap of logic: ------------------------- Somewhere in his subconscious, OP pattern-matched to the only big successful science project in the news recently - SpaceX. But the subconscious no good at talky talky, and OP didn't trace the train of thought, so what came out was "Shoot them into space".
flotwig 3y ago
Please don't "move fast and break things" with nuclear fusion :-)
- worik 3y ago
  What is the worst that can happen? Seriously, I think I might know (a fire) but I do not. Is there any possibility these can go ban! and spread nasty stuff around the neighbourhood? I doubt they can go thermonuclear bang! but I am not a physicist. What is the worst than can happen?
  - the8472 3y ago
    Well, neutron bombardment from fusion means you get some radioactive isotopes. It's not as bad as spent fuel but still something to avoid. But that doesn't really matter. This is expensive technology you don't want to blow up. Yes, more expensive than rockets.
andrewflnr 3y ago
It's true that working on fusion is high on the list of better uses for $44B than buying an overpriced social media platform.

by sdwr 3y ago

Eji1700 3y ago

This take is even more baffling to me than the original question.

sdwr 3y ago
Let me break my logic down: Assumptions: --------------------- 1. The average commenter here (me!) knows a little about nuclear fusion, and a lot about online tech news. 2. There are no new ideas. Background: ------------------------ This big science project is overbudget, making incremental progress, and the timeline is stretching to forever. That is incredibly similar to the state of rockets 10 years ago - publically funded, making little progress. Leap of logic: ------------------------- Somewhere in his subconscious, OP pattern-matched to the only big successful science project in the news recently - SpaceX. But the subconscious no good at talky talky, and OP didn't trace the train of thought, so what came out was "Shoot them into space".

flotwig 3y ago

Please don't "move fast and break things" with nuclear fusion :-)

worik 3y ago
What is the worst that can happen? Seriously, I think I might know (a fire) but I do not. Is there any possibility these can go ban! and spread nasty stuff around the neighbourhood? I doubt they can go thermonuclear bang! but I am not a physicist. What is the worst than can happen?
- the8472 3y ago
  Well, neutron bombardment from fusion means you get some radioactive isotopes. It's not as bad as spent fuel but still something to avoid. But that doesn't really matter. This is expensive technology you don't want to blow up. Yes, more expensive than rockets.

andrewflnr 3y ago

It's true that working on fusion is high on the list of better uses for $44B than buying an overpriced social media platform.