Slashdot Mirror


Breaking Into the Super Collider

BuzzSkyline writes "A group of physicists went AWOL from the American Physical Society conference in Dallas this week to explore the ruins of the nearby Superconducting Super Collider. The SSC was to be the world's largest and most ambitious physics experiment. It would have been bigger than the LHC and run at triple the energy. But the budget ran out of control and the project was scrapped in 1993."

20 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Great thinking. by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, instead of the project being an over budget waste, they canned it so it could be a complete waste with no return. Brilliant.

    1. Re:Great thinking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, instead of the project being an over budget waste, they canned it so it could be a complete waste with no return. Brilliant.

      See: Sunk Costs

      Also, this thing was turning into a white elephant - between mismanagement by the physicists and cost over-runs (gee, from Government contractors?!? No way!) this was going to turn into a huge money pit. Anyway, the Europeans did it better

  2. the "Republican Revolution" killed the SSC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    While expensive, the budget was not out of control. Gingrich & Co killed the SSC for ideological reasons.

    1. Re:the "Republican Revolution" killed the SSC by rabbit994 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Too bad Gingrich and Company didn't take command of Congress till 1994 and it was cancelled in 93. Democrats killed this one.

    2. Re:the "Republican Revolution" killed the SSC by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't remember it that way. It was a "big science/little science" fight, if I recall.

      The whole SSC thing got started under the Reagan administration, and I *especially* remember the impact when Reagan came in, because I was a student at MIT and had jobs in many research labs around the institute. The Reagan administration did a huge reorientation of the national research program. The Reagan administration had an ideology about research that pulled the plug on a lot of applied research, because that should be done by the private sector. The exception was in DoD funded research, which got a lot *more* focused on immediate applications -- specifically things that were immediately applicable to making weapons -- and so even DoD funded researcher felt the pinch. Although I disagree with Reagan's science policy, it kind of makes sense from their point of view. Making and using weapons is a legitimate government function in their view, as was research that was so far from having practical application that it could not conceivably attract any kind of private sector investment.

      The SSC was the kind of thing that the Reagan could get behind. It was by no stretch of the imagination *applied* research. It was a big and showy counterargument to the charge that the administration was "anti-science", and in the grand scheme of things, the $4.4 billion was a pittance to an administration that was going to build a 600 ship navy, and which actually *doubled* federal spending over its tenure. The problem is you can't conjure a direction change in a nation's research establishment overnight. People are in the middle of their careers, and you can't conjure new careers out of thin air. A generation of researchers had to scramble harder than ever for funding, and the funds for the SSC would have purchased a *lot* of small science.

      One of the political drawbacks with the SSC is that the economic impact couldn't be spread around the way defense contractors do to build a support base in Congress. Somebody elsewhere suggested physicists near losing SSC sites lobbied their congressmen to kill the SSC, but that doesn't really make sense. Once SSC was killed, nobody was going to build another one. The jealous nuclear physicists who would supposedly have an ax to grid would be better off having the SSC built in Texas than not built at all. But I do think it's likely there was a lot of political opposition from scientists who were "small science" advocates. Not that scientists of any stripe individually or collectively have much clout, but if legislators heard opinions from scientists on the project, the bulk of opinions were likely critical. The kinds of problems any project on this scale would have could easily be spun as imminent disaster.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. This is inspiration for education by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It is these types of things that inspire kids to get an education. It was frequent trips to NASA that inspired me to become a technical person. It was observing real scientists doing real science that taught me to be a scientist. We cannot just wave out hands around a beg and plead for students to study math and science, and for teach to competently present the subject. Without real experiences what will the teacher present? Dull facts out of books they have read. Without the ability to see real science what will the students learn? That these things are what far away people do, with no relation to their local opportunities.

    This is just one of those short sighted things we do because missiles are more exciting that basic science. A generation of US scientists should be considered loss as a result, and a generation of people able to teach the next generation about science is lost as well. How many billions of dollars is being spent to bootstrap science programs based on pictures in books when we could have have science based on real world experience.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  4. By comparison by Helpadingoatemybaby · · Score: 5, Informative

    To put it in perspective, the supercollider cost about $8 billion over ALL its years. By contrast the nuclear fission industry received $38 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees in a single year, and the CBO projects that it will default on more than half of them. That's about $20 billion in taxpayer money. In one year. And that doesn't include direct subsidies, the eight year federal tax credit, the $2 billion dollar cost overrun fund, and debt waivers.

    --

    The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.

    1. Re:By comparison by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, they're all the same party. Do you see the Democrats making moves to stop any of those goings-on?

      --

      I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  5. Just like Chernobyl by Lev13than · · Score: 3, Funny

    They missed a great opportunity to bring motorcycle helmets with them and make a whole website about their 'ride' through the famed "Superconducting Super Collider Exclusion Zone".

    --
    When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
  6. Re:Edit by butalearner · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually despite initial reservations, Clinton urged Congress to continue funding it. Congress opted not to do so due to costs associated with developing the ISS.

    Unrelated note: if you haven't clicked on TFA, you should. Don't worry, it's mostly pictures.

  7. ruined conspiracy by hort_wort · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had a conspiracy theory that this thing was secretly completed underground. These pictures lower the chances of that being true. I'm sad. :(

    1. Re:ruined conspiracy by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, that's just the decoy ruin. The real SSC was built nearby, but far enough away that anyone looking for the known SSC site wouldn't see the people going in and out of the real site!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  8. Rich Got Richer/Poor Got Poorer/Science Got Fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reagan and his band of merry dolts didn't mind running the nation into massive deficit to give tax cuts to the rich and let the military run wild, but they couldn't allow spending on a science facility that might have actually gotten us somewhere. That wouldn't be as wise as giving corporations tax breaks to ship their factories overseas...(for the irony impaired, that was ironic).

    Imagine if we already FOUND the Biggs particle, or the graviton, or figured out how to control the magnetic bottle around fusion. Twenty-plus years of research was lost so we could "save money", money we pissed away instead to cause the first tsunami of our current massive deficits.

    It's "Keynesian nonsense" when the left does deficit spending; it's the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981" or the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001" when the right does it. Sigh... And always remember the "Tax Reform Act of 1986", billed by Reagan as "tax simplification", but where we lost the deduction for interest on consumer loans. Simplification my left testicle...

    There is a special circle in hell for that bunch of idiots.

  9. Russian analogue: Protvino by kav2k · · Score: 4, Informative

    For comparison, here are the photos of a similar abandoned Russian project (Google-translated):

    Post 1 Post 2

    Note that the construction site is preserved rather than completely abandoned.

    Wikipedia link

    1. Re:Russian analogue: Protvino by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Note that the construction site is preserved rather than completely abandoned.

      Well, from the pictures it appears to be nearly completely abandoned - preserved sites don't have standing water on the floor.

  10. Politicians, not physicists by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    Also, this thing was turning into a white elephant - between mismanagement by the physicists

    The problem was not physicists but politicians. Large colliders like the LHC and SSC require a chain of accelerators of increasing energy to inject protons into them. The US already has just such a chain but in Fermilab near Chicago, not in the middle of Texas. As I understand it the decision to move the SSC from Illinois to Texas was made by politicians for political reasons. Since the entire lower energy accelerator complex had to be built from scratch in Texas this literally doubled the cost of the project.

    The damage to US physics goes well beyond the loss of the project though. There were many non-US groups involved in the SSC and its cancellation has meant that many are extremely adamant that future international accelerator projects should not be built in the US due to a complete lack of faith in the US funding system.

  11. False dichotomy. by blair1q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wasn't a choice between ISS and SSC.

    We could have bought 5 SSC's for what it cost to develop and field the F-22.

    And, at current estimates, not doing F-35 could have built 80 SSCs.

    Never underestimate the sophistry of lobbyists trading off your money for their goals.

  12. Re:Politicians, not physicists - wrong by DCFusor · · Score: 3, Insightful
    A serious series of failures to be able to actually make magnets and detectors to the specs physicists made -- was what really did it. They promised a lot more than it turned out they could deliver, and proved that by not delivering on the preliminary prototypes, and after spending money ahead of schedule.

    For once, the politicians did the right thing, actually. These clowns weren't even in the same class as the guys are CERN. Hate to say it, I'm American and wish it were otherwise, but really, go read the reports. This was a bunch of people who thought conceptually trivial meant actually trivial. Nope, and most people outside ivory towers know that. Even some politicians.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  13. Budget out of control - Not! by woboyle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As far as I understood it, the budget was pretty well under control. It's just that the Republican Congress did not want to spend $$ on basic research. My wife was working on it, and if it had gone ahead, we would have been in Austin, TX. instead of Batavia, IL where my wife is a physicist at Fermi Lab. My father, also a physicist, was involved as well, but he was trying to get the collider to be situated in Colorado, where he worked... :-)

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  14. Re:The Numbers by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am not 100% sure how having a bigger particle accelerator peen is that much better

    Okay, let me spell it out for you in terms having nothing to do with the size of America's wang (and how did Florida enter the conversation anyway?):

    A particle accelerator 3 times as powerful as the design spec for the LHC, 15-20 years earlier.

    It's not about pride, it's about physics. Physics that requires high energies to explore. We're still waiting for the LHC to answer questions that we could have answered over a decade ago, and there are other questions the LHC can't answer which the SSC could have.

    Instead, here we are in 2011, still waiting to find out if a fundamental prediction of our current physics will be borne out or if we need to rework it entirely. Just like we have been for decades.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are