An Unexpected Journey For Puss
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
According to the press the LHC was supposed to start operating this month but so far there has been no countdown to the switch on. Why?
In 1993, the U.S. Congress voted to cut off funding for what would have been a far bigger, more powerful project, the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). About fourteen miles of a planned fifty-four-mile tunnel in the region of Waxahachie, Texas, had already been excavated before the plug was pulled. Today that land sits fallow, except for the weed-strewn abandoned buildings on the site. Years of anticipation of novel discoveries were crushed in a single budgetary decision.
Why did the US abandon this similar project?
In 1993, the U.S. Congress voted to cut off funding for what would have been a far bigger, more powerful project, the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). About fourteen miles of a planned fifty-four-mile tunnel in the region of Waxahachie, Texas, had already been excavated before the plug was pulled. Today that land sits fallow, except for the weed-strewn abandoned buildings on the site. Years of anticipation of novel discoveries were crushed in a single budgetary decision.
Why did the US abandon this similar project?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
LHC will start in November, they're cooling now
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2009/PR13.09E.html
Mostly money - it was going to be hugely expensive and the Scientists didn't make a
good enough case about the need for it. The LHC has always been themed around the
Higgs Boson which gives it a strong story that politicians can understand. The SSC in
comparison appears a case of building bigger for the sake of it (regardless of whether
that is true)
Remember too that the Americans had also been up to their necks in the rising costs of
the ISS
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2009/PR13.09E.html
Mostly money - it was going to be hugely expensive and the Scientists didn't make a
good enough case about the need for it. The LHC has always been themed around the
Higgs Boson which gives it a strong story that politicians can understand. The SSC in
comparison appears a case of building bigger for the sake of it (regardless of whether
that is true)
Remember too that the Americans had also been up to their necks in the rising costs of
the ISS
I'm surprised the Americans pulled out of their collider due only to cost. Money seems no object to them if there is something to discover or put their minds to. Bill Clinton will probably go down as one of the best presidents as he left an enormous surplus which was quickly eaten away by Geo Bush and now they are in dire straights.
Maybe they pulled out because they could not see any financial gain and the Higgs Bosun is not really proven so it may have seemed like a whim.
Maybe they are right! Come November-onwards we may prove them so.
Maybe they pulled out because they could not see any financial gain and the Higgs Bosun is not really proven so it may have seemed like a whim.
Maybe they are right! Come November-onwards we may prove them so.
Are you kidding?
Money is *always* an issue to the Americans.
They have a morbid fear of "big government" and public spending there is almost always contraversial.
As energy goes up the costs go up hugely
The LHC cost £3.5 billion. but the cost is spread our contribution is £34Million
a year famously compared to less than a pint of beer for each adult in the UK.
Given the number of copies of "a brief history of time" (10 million worldwide) that have been sold
there seems enough public interest to justify that.
At the end of 1993 howver the cost of the SSC was estimated at $12 billion
Money is *always* an issue to the Americans.
They have a morbid fear of "big government" and public spending there is almost always contraversial.
As energy goes up the costs go up hugely
The LHC cost £3.5 billion. but the cost is spread our contribution is £34Million
a year famously compared to less than a pint of beer for each adult in the UK.
Given the number of copies of "a brief history of time" (10 million worldwide) that have been sold
there seems enough public interest to justify that.
At the end of 1993 howver the cost of the SSC was estimated at $12 billion
£3.5bn is a lot to spend when the outcome may probably means no Higgs Bosun.
If you think the yanks have spent wisely on the Moon and Mars landings which have cost far more you are living in ya ya land. The Russians sent a rocket to the moon scooped up some moondust and returned to Earth with it. Done at the same time and much lower cost. We all know the Americans went there to plant their stars and stripes on the surface and money was no object. Prestige for them will overcome financial worries.
If you think the yanks have spent wisely on the Moon and Mars landings which have cost far more you are living in ya ya land. The Russians sent a rocket to the moon scooped up some moondust and returned to Earth with it. Done at the same time and much lower cost. We all know the Americans went there to plant their stars and stripes on the surface and money was no object. Prestige for them will overcome financial worries.
Actually No Higgs Boson would be a good result.
The figures place it firmly within CERN's grasp. If it's not found that would mean that the standard theory is well on the wrong track and needs some heavy duty rethinking.
Not finding the Higgs Boson would prevent an awful lot of expensive theorists wasting their lives (and research grants) on poinless numbers.
A bit like that book with 100,000 values of Pi where there was a mistake about 20,000 numbers in.
Finding the error is pretty valuable.
The moon landings were always about politics. That's why there won't be a Mars landing. Obvious even when Bush was announcing it. There's no motivator.
Should there suddenly be found incontravertible signs of life - present or past that'd change
The figures place it firmly within CERN's grasp. If it's not found that would mean that the standard theory is well on the wrong track and needs some heavy duty rethinking.
Not finding the Higgs Boson would prevent an awful lot of expensive theorists wasting their lives (and research grants) on poinless numbers.
A bit like that book with 100,000 values of Pi where there was a mistake about 20,000 numbers in.
Finding the error is pretty valuable.
The moon landings were always about politics. That's why there won't be a Mars landing. Obvious even when Bush was announcing it. There's no motivator.
Should there suddenly be found incontravertible signs of life - present or past that'd change
1 to 8 of 8
Latest Posts
Sunday Express Skeleton 28Th April
Crosswords4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Can You Appreciate This Foreign Language...
Music31 mins ago
