> The best way to predict the future is to create it
Babbage designed a computer that had essentially no impact, because it could not be built, and by the time the tech was around we had better ways to build computers.
As a global effort, it may be wiser to shift focus to other things more achievable, and try QC again in 2100 (IDK, just some random future time).
There is a far greater resolve to invest in Quantum Computing technology compared to Babbage's technology in the 19th century. It remains to be seen whether ultimately something useful emerges. But we might discover other things along the way, just as the Manhattan project and the Race to the Moon were the pathway to develop several other useful technologies.
…with modern CNCs. It was simply not feasible at the time to build the parts required with enough precision, that’s what I meant by “no impact”, no one built on it because by the time we had the tools to build it, the tools where better than the thing itself.
As for the “along the way” argument, for me that’s a non-starter. We could use the same argument to justify investing in scams. “Cold fusion might not be possible, but think of what could we discover on our way there!”
For both moon landing and quantum computing the challenges were recognized to be enormous, but achievable by unthrottling the money faucet. Cold fusion is different because there is not even a theoretical venue ahead. It would be a true search in the dark at this point.
Yes, I recognize that these astronomical projects were seldom launched with purely scientific goals in mind, and I wish humanity would do it for the science in the future.