The future pursuit of fusion by the US requires that a core competency be maintained, at least above some critical level at which the accumulated experience of the past can be effectively carried forward. The requisite core competency lies not only in the discipline of plasma physics but also in engineering. The design and construction of any fusion device, especially a large burning plasma experiment, must rely heavily on engineering. Much of the engineering expertise required is unique to fusion. As fusion evolves, if it is to be successful, then by definition it must shift from physics emphasis to engineering.

Present circumstances in the US are such that no significant new device is moving forward. Although NSTX did, and NCSX will, provide some limited opportunity for the community of engineers who design and construct fusion devices to practice their work, the present level of activity is not sufficient to sustain this community.

In the US, for both historic and practical reasons, the community of engineers who design and construct fusion devices is noted to be, for the most part, distinct from the group which operates them. This is in contrast to the physics community, composed of researchers who have typically been involved in both the design and operation of fusion devices. Thus, for the physics community, the prolonged operation of existing devices and delays in the construction of new ones has less impact than it does on the engineering community.

The community of engineers who worked on the design and construction of TFTR, and recent false-start machines CIT/BPX, TPX, ITER (original EDA) and FIRE, is now to a large degree in a limbo state. These persons are now having to scramble hard to find work coverage. If the present malaise continues, they will likely be lost to the fusion program. This group is, arguably, closer to the core skill needs of the program than the operating engineers who tend to more closely resemble those practicing in mainstream industry. It is not a large community, consisting of perhaps several dozen of persons, whose names appear e.g. on the FIRE design team or, e.g. the list of attendees at the SOFE conference. The population is both dwindling and graying.

From these perspectives, the following would be positive characteristics of a next-step project:

• ability to rapidly approve, organize, and mobilize
• present a challenge to the domestic engineering community
• engage US engineering firms and academic institutions
• provide opportunities for young engineers to enter the field

Conversely, the following would be negative characteristics:

• long time to approve, organize, and mobilize
• pre-existing design, already engineered by others
• emphasis on physics collaboration with minor role for engineering
• absorb so much funding so as to preclude parallel projects including one or more with the aforementioned positive characteristics