I don't believe this is the case. I'm pretty sure there have been "hard" limits so far on what can be achieved. I'm not a physicist, not even close but as I understand it two issues remain. One is that sustaining the fusion reaction has been problematic. I believe the longest sustained reactions have been less than one second. Two is that currently we have to put more energy into creating and sustaining the reaction than it yields. These two things make this categorically different than a challenge like building the hyperloop which as far as I know didn't have any unsolved science or engineering problems.
Again, I could be wrong on my physics but as I understand it, fusion power is still a question of "is it even possible" whereas the hyperloop was more of a question about socioeconomic will.
One of the problems with creating longer-running fusion reactions is that if they do it, in order for the reactor to not wildly overheat almost instantly, they need a massive cooling system to carry the generated heat away. At that point, you almost might as well hook up a steam turbine loop and generator and put the power on the grid.
There's lots of other problems too - I don't think they have a well-tested solution for adding fresh fuel and disposing of the fused products on an ongoing basis.
JT-60 in Japan has done about half a minute, actually. There is less of an issue with sustaining reactions (since there has been steady progress over the years) than with coming up with materials that would stand up under a commercial fusion reactor's duty cycle.
Again, I could be wrong on my physics but as I understand it, fusion power is still a question of "is it even possible" whereas the hyperloop was more of a question about socioeconomic will.