John, that was a well written comment. Thank you. But I disagree:
The next leap in knowledge will occur in biology (and nanotechnology, which will overlap significantly with molecular biology), and perhaps in quantum computing. None of which will benefit from the SSC. Money would be better spent on these "smaller" projects than the massive collider.
In physics, theories are years ahead of experiments. There are many theories that propound to explain how the universe works. None have practical applications, at least not for decades if not longer (or ever).
The cost of the SSC kept on rising and rising, with the latest estimate to be anywhere between $8 and $12 billion. Estimated cost of running the thing will be $500 million annually.
The merit of the knowledge to be gained from having a giant collider has to be balanced with the cost. The money would've been better spent doing other (smaller and more numerous) science projects.
The SSC just wasn't worth it, guys. Not at $12 billion.
Collin, maybe we just have to wait for the CERN Large Hadron Collider to come online, estimated to be in 2007.
Thanks ROF, Lynn and Tom Flaherty, I've corrected the errors.
Regarding the SSC, the cost overruns are just horrendous (rule no.1 in public works: anything that requires digging will cost *multiples* of the original estimate. Case in point, the CERN Large Hadron Collider).
Do you guys remember one of the reason for having the International Space Station was so that scientists can grow protein crystals in microgravity, solve the structure, design drugs or inhibitors and cure AIDS/cancer/whatever? Curing disease was and still is a reliable way to get grant money.
I vote for Alaska, specifically Point Barrow, the northern most point of the United States.
The next leap in knowledge will occur in biology (and nanotechnology, which will overlap significantly with molecular biology), and perhaps in quantum computing. None of which will benefit from the SSC. Money would be better spent on these "smaller" projects than the massive collider.
In physics, theories are years ahead of experiments. There are many theories that propound to explain how the universe works. None have practical applications, at least not for decades if not longer (or ever).
Lastly, we overlook the dangers of the SSC: Scientists are Trying to Create Baby Bangs. :)
Big Dig wasn't on the original mental_floss article, Zig Zag.
The merit of the knowledge to be gained from having a giant collider has to be balanced with the cost. The money would've been better spent doing other (smaller and more numerous) science projects.
The SSC just wasn't worth it, guys. Not at $12 billion.
Collin, maybe we just have to wait for the CERN Large Hadron Collider to come online, estimated to be in 2007.
Regarding the SSC, the cost overruns are just horrendous (rule no.1 in public works: anything that requires digging will cost *multiples* of the original estimate. Case in point, the CERN Large Hadron Collider).
Do you guys remember one of the reason for having the International Space Station was so that scientists can grow protein crystals in microgravity, solve the structure, design drugs or inhibitors and cure AIDS/cancer/whatever? Curing disease was and still is a reliable way to get grant money.