Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjensen | Hacker News Reader

NIF has been around so long that the digitizer scene in the original TRON was filmed there. Its purpose is to explore the physics of exploding nuclear weapons; it is an arm of the lab which designs US nukes.

Any similarity between NIF and a practical Fusion Reactor is purely accidental.

View on HN

That's an oversimplification. Throughout the history of laser inertial fusion in the U.S., most of the scientists involved have been keenly interested in fusion energy, and advocated a program explicitly aimed at energy production.

Congress opted instead to fund it as a weapons-related program, but that doesn't mean that's all they're doing, and for a while they were explicitly spending the majority of their efforts on achieving energy gain. Recently they missed a deadline set by Congress which redirected the program to be only 20% for energy.

A really great history of the U.S. fusion program, from the 1950s to about 2012, is Search for the Ultimate Energy Source by Stephen O. Dean, who was deeply involved with much of it. http://www.amazon.com/Search-Ultimate-Energy-Source-ebook/dp...

>most of the scientists involved have been keenly interested in fusion energy

Can you back this statement up?

My source is the book I linked. Not everything's online.

But I should probably say "many" rather than "most," since he didn't give actual numbers.

So that's a "no".

You challenged the idea that a DoD project is indeed defense-related by citing (but not really) an obscure book that maybe says some scientists involved with NIF really believe it's for energy production. Forgive me if I'm not convinced.

So, first, TRON was shot in the Shiva Laser facility, a precursor to NIF that is also situated at LLNL.

Second, if anyone would like to see an inspirational speech given by NIF Director Ed Moses on how you move from theory to a a working reactor based on this technology, he spoke at Long Now in SF a few years ago:

http://fora.tv/2010/06/16/Ed_Moses_Clean_Fusion_Power_This_D...

Their LIFE design for a practical, economical power plant is also worth looking at. For people who don't care about energy they've sure put a lot of work into it, in collaboration with over thirty industry vendors. https://life.llnl.gov/

Yup.

TL;DR - More money -> likely fewer results.

Large organizations tend toward waste, delay and mediocrity. Without a profit motive and a mission to deliver a specific solution, the modus operandi is to grow as big of a budget pyramid as possible while providing just enough press releases to keep the DOE gravy-train rolling.

This is why high beta and other approaches from smaller groups may likely crack the problem, despite not having all of the toys (and distractions).

Do you have any evidence to back this up? Off the top of my head I can think of several dozen large successful projects, everything from the Mars Rover to CERN's LHC to the great wall of China and the Pyramids. These were all enormous projects requiring thousands of workers.

For anyone that has worked for a large organization, for- or non-profit, for any amount of time with a budget then it's easier to understand how things actually work.

I have seen 9 figure / 7 year internal projects silently scuttled as to not create a "failure", despite delivering nothing. I have seen 6 figure projects surpass 8 figure projects through a combination of talent and leadership. I've seen duplication of systems merely because two depts can't find a way to work together, effectively doubling costs.

Depends on the meaning of "success." "Success" of a political project is rarely based on results; all projects are "successful," because the unsuccessful ones disappear. Real success, as in achieving an novel aim, is another matter.

Success is great, but at too high of a cost, it may make the results bitter (bodies in the Great Wall, pushing $10 billion total spent on NIF without results). This is where private R&D excels: there's a defined goal, time/cost pressures and usually fewer political constraints. This is why high beta has a higher probability of success AND a lower cost of success (better value/$).

There have been hundreds (maybe thousands?) of independently operating research groups at Universities and government labs, working since the 1950's all of them studying fusion. None of them has come as close to attaining controlled self-sustained fusion as the NIF. That is the entire point of large grand projects, they do what small groups aren't capable of. Simply because the NIF hasn't yet attained self-sustained controlled fusion doesn't mean its a failure.

What do you think is reasonable price tag for the development of an entirely new form of clean energy?

What a ridiculous comment. Large budget in comparison to what? So the scientists who have dedicated their academic lives to research are just in it for the money? Does NASA waste the $16.6 Billion they receive? The Saturn 5 was developed for hundreds of billions. There is absolutely nothing that would substantiate your "gravy train" buzz phrase.

Duh. NASA wastes billions for the value delivered, and it's more/less an Amtrak. SpaceX, Virgin Galatic and Stratolaunch deliver much more value because they have to; hence vendor partnerships and [0]. NASA, along with the rest of USG, is also trying its best to manage a multitude of accelerator/incubator programs to promote private, commercial research.

Saturn V might have worked, but justifying costs of one program with historic waste of another is still an invalid argument in the context of cost of success.

[0] http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/169943main_NASA_Virgin_Galactic_MOU....

"Saturn V might have worked, but justifying costs of one program with historic waste of another is still an invalid argument in the context of cost of success." Did you read your comment? You can't justify your argument by bringing up "Amtrak" (not sure what an Amtrak is) a supposed failing enterprise, as much as I can bring up the Saturn V and use it to support my point. Again there is absolutely nothing to back up what you said. The issue of wasted costs comes down to management and little else. Small business and large businesses both can waste money or apply capital in smart ways. You also didn't specify what a large amount of money is, is Apple more wasteful than Boeing because of the disparity of income? The amount that NASA gets in funding is quite small and they do a lot with it. SpaceX or Virgin Galatic aren't actively commanding multiple missions within and outside of our solar system. Your argument is so general and naive. Have you ever worked in industry?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com