Slashdot Mirror
Big Science has a Twenty-Year Plan
Earlier this week, Energy Secretary Spence Abraham laid out the Office of Science's 20-year plan for building and upgrading the U.S.'s "Big Science" facilities. Twenty-eight programs got the nod, in all. The top priorities -- fusion, and a massive supercomputer. Other goals on the wish list include studying dark energy, high-speed atomic-scale imaging with an electron laser, and fulfilling several particle-physics dreams, including a collider to rival CERN's LHC. Here's the press release and the full list (PDF). Your grandchildren may write school papers on the discoveries these tools will make...
The fusion powered supercomputer can take care of everything else by itself.
....something like 13 or 14 years ago, when Japan was starting to make a technological comeback in the world from an industrial society, they came out with a plan that almost parallels this....on a much different scale. Japan had plans to buid many, I think in fact 20-something, "science cities", which rapidly accelerated them into the 21st century.
What's happening here is important, because the U.S. could use a serious technological R&D upgrade, in my opinion. Moving to Linux is one thing, and I suppose, particle-physics and dark energy, along with a "massive supercomputer" are another. So long as they stay within the budget...
We had one of those projects going: the Superconducting Supercollider. That went tango uniform as quick as you can say "policy shift".
All kinds of things can be announced for all kinds of reasons. Mostly the announcements are so you can hear the politicians make announcements and see what forward thinking people they are.
I don't even believe it when I'm told I've gotten my own grants -- not until I see the check has cleared the bank.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
There haven't been that many "ties" since the running of the 100 meters in the special olympics.
Hmm, maybe we shouldn't have killed off the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), after 14 miles of tunneling were already completed and two billion dollars were spent.
The eco-dumbasses talk about it alternatively as an unnecessary geek-scientist's playground, or as a wasteful front for the military-industrial complex.
What it would have been is a window into the most fundamental building blocks of the Universe. And now apparently we want to try again, even though we should have finished it the first time around...
Congress voted Monday to cut federal funding for the superconducting monkey collider, a controversial experiment which has cost taxpayers an estimated $7.6 billion a year since its creation in 1983.
The collider, which was to be built within a 45-mile-long circular tunnel, would accelerate monkeys to near-light speeds before smashing them together. Scientists insist the collider is an important step toward understanding the universe, because no one can yet say for certain what kind of noises monkeys would make if collided at those high speeds.
"It could be a thump, a splat, or maybe even a sound that hasn't yet been heard by human ears," said project head Dr. Eric Reed Friday, in an impassioned plea to Congress. "How are we supposed to understand things like the atom or the nature of gravity if we don't even know what colliding monkeys sound like?"
But Congress, under heavy pressure from the powerful monkey rights lobby, decided that money being spent on the monkey collider would be put to better use in other areas of government. Now, with funding cut off, the future of our nation's monkey collision program looks bleak.
Congress began funding the monkey collider in 1983, after Reed convinced lawmakers that the U.S. was lagging behind the Soviet Union in monkey-colliding technology. Funds were quickly allocated so that Reed could spend a week procuring monkeys on Florida's beautiful Captiva Island. Though Reed returned with a great tan and a beautiful young fiancee, he reported that there were no monkeys to be found on the sunny Gulf Coast island. Congress funded subsequent trips to the Cayman Islands, Bora Bora and Cancun, but these searches also yielded negative results.
Two years passed without a single monkey being procured, and Congress was close to cutting the project's funding. It was then that Reed got the idea to utilize monkeys already being bred in captivity. The Congressional Subcommittee for Scientific Investigation was enthralled by the idea of watching caged monkeys copulate, and increased funding by 40 percent.
With a steady supply of monkeys ensured, construction of the monkey collider began on a scenic Colorado site. Despite environmental pressure, a mountain was levelled to facilitate construction of the seven-mile-wide complex. Huge underground tunnels were dug, at a cost of billions of dollars and 17 lives. Money left over was used to build resort homes, spas and video arcades for Reed, his colleagues and several Congressmen.
Construction of the collider's acceleration mechanism was delayed for years, as scientists couldn't decide how to get the monkeys up to smashing speed. Last month, it was finally decided that the collider would employ a system in which the monkeys run through the tunnels chasing holographic projections of bananas. "Monkeys love bananas," Reed said, "and they're willing to run extremely fast to get them."
But now it seems the acceleration mechanism may never be built. With the monkey collider placed on indefinite hold, the huge research facility in Colorado lies dormant. To keep the space from going to waste, Congress Monday voted to convert the empty underground tunnel into a federally funded drag-racing track. The track is expected to create hundreds of jobs in the form of pit crews and concessions workers, and will allow President Clinton to impress important foreign dignitaries with America's wheelie technology.
Despite this promising alternate plan, most involved with the monkey collider project feel the sudden cuts in funding are inexcusable. "It is a travesty of science," Reed said. "I remember the joy I felt in college when I would launch monkeys at one another with big rubber bands, and this project would have been even more enlightening."
The top priorities -- fusion, and a massive supercomputer.
Whatever. I'm still waiting on the flying cars.
The coolest voice ever.
It's heartening to note that the report gives so much importance to fundamental research unlike most of the research that happens today which is so geared towards creating marketable products or intellectual property. While the latter is also good for all, science will stagnate in the absence of fundamental research . This 20 year outlook is definitely a pat in the back for schools all around the country.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
Same with supercomputers. Supercomputers are so 80s/90s. Decentralization is the thing of today, but, say, creating a grid network of 10,000 computers is not so easy to compare to some Japanese mega-thingie.
I sometimes wonder, if you took just 0.1% of that money and gave it to a random bunch of OSS developers, how much progress would come out of that.
This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
It's nice to see that the US government cares about supporting future technology and 'science facilities'.
In France our government is doing major cut in funding of many science labs and projects and that means that we will soon be unable to keep up with America's technology.
Anyway I wonder why building a new collider where the US government could have helped funding the construction of the LHC (allowing it to be even larger) ?
I would also like to know if you think that these fundings are military related. I mean do you think the US government is putting money in because most of these technologies could have military use ?
Unfortunately it seems nothing goes to the space elevator...
Iraq: war to save the U
Not likely. I'm all for research, but most of the stuff on this list is "big science" only in terms of the money that will be spent, not the knowledge that will be gained. There's tons of biotech, materials-science, computing, optics, and other research that would be more rewarding. The most appalling omission is that the Department of Energy doesn't seem to think that battery technology - the thing holding back deployment of many other technologies - deserves even one project. Nothing on portable fuel cells, microturbines, biodiesel, wave power, or other energy-related technologies either, except fusion. What is the Department of Energy thinking?
There might be a few things in there to write papers about, but if we spend all of the money to fund these projects there won't be any left over for schools...or paper, for that matter. The only way my grandchildren will be writing papers on this stuff is if I or my children move somewhere with a sane science policy.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Your grandchildren may write school papers on the discoveries these tools will make...
Hello?!? This is Slashdot, the chances of readers being able to find a 'mate', let alone produce offspring is a 'Big Science' matter that really needs to be funded IMHO.
We should have been going balls to the wall on fusion since the energy crisis... of the SEVENTIES! Maybe we wouldn't have had it by now, but maybe it would be a lot closer.
Academics in the 50's (!!!) were writing about how US dependence on foreign oil (specifically Persian Gulf/Arabian oil) was just asking for trouble. Then OPEC bites us in the ass. We freak out a bit (price controls, wear more sweaters), but when the "crisis" (largely self-inflicted; read some economics books) abates, we go back to business as usual, just waiting for our dependence on foreign oil to bite us in the ass again... as it has several times to varying degrees.
Unfortunately, both stereotypes are to a large degree true. Finding politicians of either major party who are willing to champion science for its own sake and the long-term benefits isn't easy. Right-wingers do object to science that treads on their ideology (which, given the pervasiveness of both right-wing ideology and modern science, is a hell of a lot of it) and left-wingers do object to spending money on blue-sky research vs. short-term giveaways. And anti-intellectualism is always a good selling point in anyone's campaign.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Slashdot has killed the Department of Energy's website! Does this constitute terrorism?