3 ms·

Whenever I can choose between quick iterations and long iteration times with massive upfront cost, I will choose the quick iteration despite a high chance of fa

Whenever I can choose between quick iterations and long iteration times with massive upfront cost, I will choose the quick iteration despite a high chance of failure in each iteration. Except if my desire is empire building instead of making progress, then I would choose the longest and most expensive path which doesn't show any quantifiable results along the way and requires the most human resources and therefore provides the best career for management with enough plank to leave the ship in time.

cherryteastain 2y ago
The giant investment is a prerequisite for a genuine technical leap, but not an assurance of success. There are plenty of smaller fusion reactors in the world, such as JET in Oxford, UK. None of them offer a credible pathway to energy-positive fusion. Would you have also objected to LHC, Apollo program or the ISS? They also cost dozens of billions, yet delivered a step change in their respective fields. Hope is that ITER and DEMO will deliver the next. It is doubtful yet another smaller-yet-nimbler fusion project would deliver what ITER promises.
- threatripper 2y ago
  > It is doubtful yet another smaller-yet-nimbler fusion project would deliver what ITER promises. True, but reality rarely lives up to promises. How much fusion did ITER deliver? https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/worlds-largest-nuclear-reactor-is-finally-completed-but-it-wont-run-for-another-15-years https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/worlds-large... Those giant projects are a class of its own and truly deliver results in many aspects beside the main objective. How much money did the LHC make? How is commercial space flight doing? How many commercial fusion reactors have been ordered based on ITER? Those are research projects that require a huge investment to get anything done in that field and as such it's clear that you have to do that necessary investment to get anything done. I'm not even criticizing big costly iterations if smaller iteration cycles are not possible.

cherryteastain 2y ago

The giant investment is a prerequisite for a genuine technical leap, but not an assurance of success. There are plenty of smaller fusion reactors in the world, such as JET in Oxford, UK. None of them offer a credible pathway to energy-positive fusion. Would you have also objected to LHC, Apollo program or the ISS? They also cost dozens of billions, yet delivered a step change in their respective fields. Hope is that ITER and DEMO will deliver the next. It is doubtful yet another smaller-yet-nimbler fusion project would deliver what ITER promises.

threatripper 2y ago
> It is doubtful yet another smaller-yet-nimbler fusion project would deliver what ITER promises. True, but reality rarely lives up to promises. How much fusion did ITER deliver? https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/worlds-largest-nuclear-reactor-is-finally-completed-but-it-wont-run-for-another-15-years https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/worlds-large... Those giant projects are a class of its own and truly deliver results in many aspects beside the main objective. How much money did the LHC make? How is commercial space flight doing? How many commercial fusion reactors have been ordered based on ITER? Those are research projects that require a huge investment to get anything done in that field and as such it's clear that you have to do that necessary investment to get anything done. I'm not even criticizing big costly iterations if smaller iteration cycles are not possible.