Wow... really great story. I love all the nuclear fusion content, stories of founders, and especially love the science-techno-industrial twinge you put on the American Dream in your writings.
I'm curious to know how much technical experience and domain knowledge JCB had when he started the company at 19. He didn't do undergrad or a PhD, but did he have PhD-level knowledge on nuclear fusion by then? If not, did he pair with someone that had that? Or did he take more of a "learn-as-you-go" approach after he identified the initial opportunity?
What I'm trying to get at is this: what is the minimum amount of knowledge you need to start a deep tech company if you're young and have an idea? Until now, I thought I had to do a whole PhD before feeling credible enough to start. Or, can just go ahead and start once you've identified an opportunity, even if you are still new to the field? If you don't have those established credentials yet and just have vision and strategy, can you really attract top talent to work for you?
Would love to hear what you think since you are one of the main influencers that got me invested in deep tech!
Just discovered this site...and Packy McCormick's writing. Absolutely Awesome!! I don't often come across writers that can keep my attention to an article for this long. Thanks for the great job on this Packy. Also following you now on LinkedIn. It was inspiring. Thank you.
Is there any amount of funding that is too much to accelerate possible commercialization. Global warming will cost trillions, dislocate people and economies, cause loss of millions if not billions of lives globally, be the genesis of wars (saving the cost of wars and prepping for wars will save trillions), and will put more relative pressure on the nations that use the most energy ( the US). The US has the opportunity to lead and deliver, even if there is a 10% probability of success it will show a positive expected value. There should be a plan put together modeled around a aggressive fast path, with plan Bs, funded.
I get a bit depressed every time I read about weapons / war / the amount of taxes that goes to "defense" / the Great Filter and the worry that humans might destroy Earth and all of consciousness on it.
But how uplifting that there are such creative, determined young people!
The bright side way to think of it is that a lot of that money that gets spent on defense supports the early development of technologies that become more broadly useful. If defense spending can help get us to fusion, that's a win.
"When JC discovered the Z Machine in his research, it was like he’d uncovered a secret hidden in plain sight. No private company was pursuing anything like the Z Machine, despite its performance"
*Despite* its performance? They're not pursuing it *because* of its performance. Its best shots are 10^-5 below breakeven, and the entire liner collapse concept is beset with R-T and R-M instabilities that no one knows how to solve.
If he convinced you he's onto some secret approach that no one else knows about then I think you need to do a little more reading. This approach dates to the 1960s and is well known and well understood in the fusion field.
Great article and impressive company. If you like it, take a look at SHINEfusion.com - same business plan but 10 years ahead. Commercial DT fusion devices produce 35 trillion neutrons per second. Revenue in neutron imaging, radiation effects testing and medical isotopes. $800M raised, 260 employees. Lots of room for competition!
If the SpaceX model is to 1) start with a world-changing goal and work backwards to chunk out the successive innovations needed to achieve it, 2) solve big problems for the government aligned with that innovation path and 3) use government money to springboard to commercial use cases and scale to generate the cash needed to fund the original moonshot goal.
A large part of that is based on a scaffold of public spending which only exists in the US. The US had a massive boom in publicly funded innovation in the late 20th century, with a series of agencies (NASA, DARPA, DARPA-E) managing enormous programmes. Since the 80s, that boom has tapered. As they age, these programmes are now facing the challenges of using and maintaining enormously expensive technology that can't keep up with new demands.
US agencies operating enormous projects, with huge budgets, are therefore forced to look for cheaper, leaner solutions to support these massive infrastructure and technology programmes. That is a massive opportunity.
Is that unique to the US? There is a similar need elsewhere - the UK is in the middle of a programme to modernise its deterrent, which involves similar challenges (albeit a different scale; the Defence Nuclear Organisation oversees around 250 warheads, 0.5% the size of the US stockpile). I wonder how open the AWE or Defence Nuclear Organisation (the UK's equivalent to the NNSA) would be to this kind of collaborative model even if the money was there.
Is there anywhere else where the scale of need, budget, and institutional openness exists to make this kind of model possible?
Wow! Too humbled to comment.
Wow... really great story. I love all the nuclear fusion content, stories of founders, and especially love the science-techno-industrial twinge you put on the American Dream in your writings.
I'm curious to know how much technical experience and domain knowledge JCB had when he started the company at 19. He didn't do undergrad or a PhD, but did he have PhD-level knowledge on nuclear fusion by then? If not, did he pair with someone that had that? Or did he take more of a "learn-as-you-go" approach after he identified the initial opportunity?
What I'm trying to get at is this: what is the minimum amount of knowledge you need to start a deep tech company if you're young and have an idea? Until now, I thought I had to do a whole PhD before feeling credible enough to start. Or, can just go ahead and start once you've identified an opportunity, even if you are still new to the field? If you don't have those established credentials yet and just have vision and strategy, can you really attract top talent to work for you?
Would love to hear what you think since you are one of the main influencers that got me invested in deep tech!
holy shit! too good!!
My man - thanks Ayush!
Awesome deep dive! You synthesized so well something incredibly complex.
Love your deep dives! Reignite and grow my excitement for the future every single time. This article series is the SpaceX of spreading optimism ;)
I have no idea how I ended up here but glad I did. Very well written and interesting article. Hope they have stock when they open HQ is US. I'm in.
Just discovered this site...and Packy McCormick's writing. Absolutely Awesome!! I don't often come across writers that can keep my attention to an article for this long. Thanks for the great job on this Packy. Also following you now on LinkedIn. It was inspiring. Thank you.
Is there any amount of funding that is too much to accelerate possible commercialization. Global warming will cost trillions, dislocate people and economies, cause loss of millions if not billions of lives globally, be the genesis of wars (saving the cost of wars and prepping for wars will save trillions), and will put more relative pressure on the nations that use the most energy ( the US). The US has the opportunity to lead and deliver, even if there is a 10% probability of success it will show a positive expected value. There should be a plan put together modeled around a aggressive fast path, with plan Bs, funded.
What an incredible article!
I get a bit depressed every time I read about weapons / war / the amount of taxes that goes to "defense" / the Great Filter and the worry that humans might destroy Earth and all of consciousness on it.
But how uplifting that there are such creative, determined young people!
🤞
The bright side way to think of it is that a lot of that money that gets spent on defense supports the early development of technologies that become more broadly useful. If defense spending can help get us to fusion, that's a win.
"When JC discovered the Z Machine in his research, it was like he’d uncovered a secret hidden in plain sight. No private company was pursuing anything like the Z Machine, despite its performance"
*Despite* its performance? They're not pursuing it *because* of its performance. Its best shots are 10^-5 below breakeven, and the entire liner collapse concept is beset with R-T and R-M instabilities that no one knows how to solve.
If he convinced you he's onto some secret approach that no one else knows about then I think you need to do a little more reading. This approach dates to the 1960s and is well known and well understood in the fusion field.
Great article and impressive company. If you like it, take a look at SHINEfusion.com - same business plan but 10 years ahead. Commercial DT fusion devices produce 35 trillion neutrons per second. Revenue in neutron imaging, radiation effects testing and medical isotopes. $800M raised, 260 employees. Lots of room for competition!
Loved this deep dive! So so cool!. Go deeper. More technical and more capital efficient.
while i don’t have the capability to evaluate the technology side, it was absolutely fascinating business story.
If the SpaceX model is to 1) start with a world-changing goal and work backwards to chunk out the successive innovations needed to achieve it, 2) solve big problems for the government aligned with that innovation path and 3) use government money to springboard to commercial use cases and scale to generate the cash needed to fund the original moonshot goal.
A large part of that is based on a scaffold of public spending which only exists in the US. The US had a massive boom in publicly funded innovation in the late 20th century, with a series of agencies (NASA, DARPA, DARPA-E) managing enormous programmes. Since the 80s, that boom has tapered. As they age, these programmes are now facing the challenges of using and maintaining enormously expensive technology that can't keep up with new demands.
US agencies operating enormous projects, with huge budgets, are therefore forced to look for cheaper, leaner solutions to support these massive infrastructure and technology programmes. That is a massive opportunity.
Is that unique to the US? There is a similar need elsewhere - the UK is in the middle of a programme to modernise its deterrent, which involves similar challenges (albeit a different scale; the Defence Nuclear Organisation oversees around 250 warheads, 0.5% the size of the US stockpile). I wonder how open the AWE or Defence Nuclear Organisation (the UK's equivalent to the NNSA) would be to this kind of collaborative model even if the money was there.
Is there anywhere else where the scale of need, budget, and institutional openness exists to make this kind of model possible?