| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| A dazzling bright future dawns in New Jersey; Do away with Obamacare and spend our money here. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 24 2013, 08:46 AM (349 Views) | |
| Berton | Dec 24 2013, 08:46 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A dazzling bright future dawns in New Jersey The Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) focus — magnetic fusion research — began at the university in 1951. It was grounded in the earlier work of a European scientist then living in Princeton. Einstein’s theory that mass could be converted into energy had been demonstrated six years earlier near Alamogordo, N.M., by fission — the splitting of atoms, which released the energy that held the atoms together. By the 1950s, however, attention was turning to an unimaginably more promising method of releasing energy from transforming matter — the way the sun does, by fusion. Every second the sun produces a million times more energy than the world consumes in a year. But to “take a sun and put it in a box” — the description of one scientist here — requires developing the new field of plasma physics and solving the most difficult engineering problems in the history of science. The objective is to create conditions for the controlled release of huge amounts of energy from the fusion of two hydrogen isotopes, deuterium and tritium. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe; Earth’s water contains a virtually inexhaustible supply (10 million million tons) of deuterium, and tritium is “bred” in the fusion plant itself. The sun is a huge sphere of plasma, which is a hot, electrically charged gas. The production and confinement of plasma in laboratories is now routine. The task now is to solve the problem of “net energy” — producing more electrical power than is required for the production of it. Magnets produce a field sufficient to prevent particles heated beyond the sun’s temperature — more than 100 million degrees Celsius — from hitting the walls of the containment vessel. Understanding plasma’s behavior requires the assistance of Titan, one of the world’s fastest computers, which is located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and can perform more than 17 quadrillion — a million billion — calculations a second. As in today’s coal-fired power plants, the ultimate object is heat — to turn water into steam that drives generators. Fusion, however, produces no greenhouse gases, no long-lived nuclear waste and no risk of the sort of runaway reaction that occurred at Fukushima. Fusion research here and elsewhere is supported by nations with half the world’s population — China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the European Union. The current domestic spending pace would cost $2.5 billion over 10 years — about one-thirtieth of what may be squandered in California on a 19th-century technology (a train). By one estimate, to bring about a working fusion reactor in 20 years would cost $30 billion — approximately the cost of one week of U.S. energy consumption. Given the societal will, commercially feasible production of fusion energy is possible in the lifetime of most people now living. The cost of operating the PPPL complex, which a century from now might be designated a historic site, is 0.01 percent of U.S. energy spending. PPPL’s budget is a minuscule fraction of U.S. energy infrastructure investment (power plants, pipelines). Yet the laboratory, which once had a staff of 1,400, today has only 450. The Apollo space program was much less technologically demanding and much more accessible to public understanding. It occurred in the context of U.S.-Soviet competition; it was directly relevant to national security (ballistic missiles; the coin of international prestige); it had a time frame for success — President Kennedy’s pledge to go to the moon in the 1960s — that could hold the public’s attention and incremental progress (orbital flights) the public could comprehend. Because the fusion energy program lacks such immediacy, transparency and glamour, it poses a much more difficult test for the political process. Because of its large scale and long time horizon, the fusion project is a perfect example of a public good the private sector cannot pursue and the public sector should not slight. Most government revenues now feed the public’s unslakable appetite for transfer payments. The challenge for today’s political class is to moderate its subservience to this appetite sufficiently to enable the basic science that will earn tomorrow’s gratitude. LINK |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Dec 25 2013, 12:19 AM Post #2 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Shouldn't markets decide whether to pursue that technology rather than governments? I mean, you guys always claim that markets determine what gets done or not in the absence of government assistance. I think we face a difficult decision in such matters. That enigma is whether to take care of our people today or those who will be born in the future. It would seem that given that accumulation of wealth by the very few means they finance such endeavors or it doesn't get done without government. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Dec 25 2013, 12:25 AM Post #3 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When I watched the documentary about the guy who started Tesla Motors, Solar City, and Space X companies, I was struck by just how much we now have that was the brainchild and came about from the blood, sweat, and tears of a private individual. What it took NASA to accomplish with 10's of $billions, this guy surpassed and did so with his own money followed by some investors chipping in. And the Space X rockets are an improvement. When government says we can't go to the Moon or Mars and beyond, private companies are well on their way there. I believe the same will be true with fusion technology or other seemingly impossible tasks. The profit motive and the challenge fuels these guys. What profit motive does a University research lab or the government have? Are the scientists collecting government paychecks willing to eat, sleep and live their dreams until accomplished? |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Dec 25 2013, 12:28 AM Post #4 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Those technologies are no more than extensions of research done by government entities. I seriously doubt that the money necessary to have gotten us to this point would have happened without government money. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Dec 25 2013, 12:45 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yup. Every one I've seen. Your example about Private Enterprise getting to space is silly. Every single entrepreneur is basing his design on NASA or ESA's original designs. And the Fusion designs are the same. Original design work is expensive. Edited by Brewster, Dec 25 2013, 12:45 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Pat | Dec 25 2013, 01:33 AM Post #6 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If you are talking about the aerodynamic shape which has been with us long before this was a country then yes, shapes were tinkered with long ago. This Falcon 9 is the first rocket completely developed in the 21st century. Originally the company founder had considered buying surplus Soviet nuclear warhead rockets but opted instead to design an all new one. Designed, developed and financed with private money. Yep, designed from the ground up. quote-- Falcon 9 is a two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by SpaceX for the reliable and safe transport of satellites and the Dragon spacecraft into orbit. As the first rocket completely developed in the 21st century, Falcon 9 was designed from the ground up for maximum reliability. Falcon 9’s simple two-stage configuration minimizes the number of separation events -- and with nine first-stage engines, it can safely complete its mission even in the event of an engine shutdown.Falcon 9 made history in 2012 when it delivered Dragon into the correct orbit for rendezvous with the International Space Station, making SpaceX the first commercial company ever to visit the station. Since then SpaceX has made a total of three flights to the space station, both delivering and returning cargo for NASA. Falcon 9, along with the Dragon spacecraft, was designed from the outset to deliver humans into space and under an agreement with NASA, SpaceX is actively working toward that goal. |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Dec 25 2013, 01:42 AM Post #7 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nevertheless, almost all technology builds on previous discoveries. SpaceX, for instance, had many years of trial and error research it could use to avoid the failures of earlier models. As with Tesla, I hope SpaceX is successful. We need innovation like that to remain competitive in the world. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Dec 25 2013, 05:37 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes, Pat, SpaceX made the final design, but it was financed with gov't money, (1.6Bn$) it was based on earlier (GOVERNMENT) designs, and many of its employees are from NASA. I'm not denigrating their accomplishments, and private development may move much further in the future, but I'm not going to put them on a pedestal like you want to do. Let's at least be a little realistic. LINK |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:06 PM Jul 11
