Serious question: how does an article like this get written without mentioning SPARC[1] once? They're hardly secretive, they're MIT's people, they're moving on a plan to get results in ~5 years, and they're talking about the same kind of things: tokamaks, better computer modeling, and easier to make higher temperature superconductors for stronger magnets.<p>I'm just a layperson, I only know pop science level stuff here, but they seem clearly like the best game in town -- so, seriously, can a person in the physics world shed some light on why they aren't at least a small part of every article about fusion, but ITER is?<p>1 - <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC_(tokamak)" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC_(tokamak)</a><p>(And, for those with an interest who still haven't seen Zach Hartwig's absolutely excellent 2017 talk: <a href="https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk</a> -- watch it!)