[simne]

Big milestone is construction materials, could long enough withstand neutron stream, which is about two magnitudes more, than in fission reactors.

This is last unknown in this equation. All others are already known, from achievements of last few years.

Materials research is one of primary targets of ITER.

If good enough materials will not being found fast enough, will need to use clear reactions like boron-carbon fusion, in which need magnitude higher temperature, so practical device will be few times larger (because x-ray losses, proportional to surface square of plasma configuration).

[pfdietz]

ITER will only operate for a few weeks total at full power. It's not intended for materials development. For that, a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) would be needed.

[simne]

You don't understand. ITER will RESEARCH, how existing materials withstand in real fusion reactor, and gather parameters of real fusion reactor, so other science facilities will have benchmarks.

[pfdietz]

ITER is fundamentally unable to replicate the conditions that materials will be subjected to in an actual commercial fusion reactor. It cannot achieve the same cumulative neutrons dose that a real reactor can experience. It will not be able to answer the questions that need to be answered to prove out the materials for first walls or blankets, and it will not be able to establish reliability metrics for these structures.

For this reason, there has long been a call for a FNSF. This facility is likely to be needed to establish designs for components that would go into the putative successor to ITER (DEMO).

[simne]

> ITER is fundamentally unable to replicate the conditions that materials will be subjected to in an actual commercial fusion reactor

Are You joking? Or You just don't know physics?

What REALLY differ ITER (DEMO) from real commercial reactor?

[pfdietz]

No, I'm not joking.

ITER fails in at least two ways. First, the intensity of neutron radiation at the first wall is far too low for a viable commercial reactor. It cannot simulate the heat load a commercially viable breeding module would encounter. Second, ITER cannot operate for more than a few weeks, so it cannot simulate the integrated radiation load a commercial first wall would have to be able to withstand. It also cannot operate with enough blanket modules, for long enough, to move the designs down experience curves for reliability growth to occur so they are sufficiently robust for a commercial reactor (this is a huge looming problem, as they will be very difficult to repair.)

Abdou at UCLA has been beating the drum for a FNSF to actually address these issues. He's been beating this drum for DECADES.

[simne]

> the intensity of neutron radiation at the first wall is far too low for a viable commercial reactor

Source? Proofs? Sorry, for me this looking as just Your opinion.

> Second, ITER cannot operate for more than a few weeks

This is just not important at all now. That what I mean, said You don't understand physics.

- NOWHERE at Earth possible to recreate exact radiation environment of Jupiter orbit for YEARS, need to test radiation capable computer environment for space probes.

What really doing? After first probes measured parameters of environment, at Earth built test benches, consisting of few throttle-able sources, so they give approximate spectrum, very like near Jupiter, but could do year dose in few hours and could easy be switched off, to make manipulations with tested samples.

So now, I even know guys, who touched exposed chips and running real world software on them, and real computers in Jupiter/Mars missions, working much longer than need for mission (BTW, first samples tested at Earth, where not reliable).