A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 10th 08, 08:23 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Rich[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS

They could have built 4 colliders for the same cost as the white
elephant in space. Hey Americans, remember the Superconducting
Supercollider? Too bad you abandoned it to the prairie dogs.
  #2  
Old September 10th 08, 08:53 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS

On Sep 10, 9:23*pm, Rich wrote:
They could have built 4 colliders for the same cost as the white
elephant in space. Hey Americans, remember the Superconducting
Supercollider? *Too bad you abandoned it to the prairie dogs.


Apart from the cobblers about the 'deep mysteries of the
Universe','new physics' and all the usual party pieces thrown at a
wider population ( who probably would like to know how many planets
there are in the solar system !) why should the Americans spend money
on projects that may have benefits at highly concentrated levels of
energy but have no intrinsic astronomical value beyond processes such
as stellar evolution.

The precepts for this ridiculous sounding 'big bang' are simply
celestial sphere extensions of the late 17th century framework with no
prizes for guessing where the -every-point-is-the-valid-center coming
from -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

That is what you get when you decide to tie daily rotation directly to
a stellar framework and the calendar system,you have thousands of
valuable lives wasted on working off an astrological framework and
coming up with an expanding balloon Universe.

On the bright side,the LHC could produce genuine productive work but
not in structural astronomy and that is being fair.




  #3  
Old September 11th 08, 12:15 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 780
Default Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS


"Rich" wrote in message
...
They could have built 4 colliders for the same cost as the white
elephant in space. Hey Americans, remember the Superconducting
Supercollider? Too bad you abandoned it to the prairie dogs.


But the SSC would have cost as much as the ISS. LHC benefitted from
- an existing hole in the ground
- not being paid by USA taxpayers

ISS does other things. Just like Hubble does other things.


  #4  
Old September 11th 08, 01:40 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Davoud[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,989
Default Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS

OG wrote:

But the SSC would have cost as much as the ISS. LHC benefitted from
- an existing hole in the ground


Digging the hole would have been the cheap part.

- not being paid by USA taxpayers


Bzzzzt! The LHC has received at least $531 million in U.S. taxpayer
funding to date.

ISS does other things. Just like Hubble does other things.


Hubble does things other than serve as a telescope? Focuses starlight
to cook hot dogs, perhaps?

Anyway, this is moot. The American people don't need no stinkin'
accelerators or space telescopes to tell them about the Universe.
Everything they need to know is in the first chapter of Genesis.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
  #5  
Old September 11th 08, 03:34 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Rich[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 751
Default Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS

On Sep 10, 7:15*pm, "OG" wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message

...

They could have built 4 colliders for the same cost as the white
elephant in space. Hey Americans, remember the Superconducting
Supercollider? *Too bad you abandoned it to the prairie dogs.


But the SSC would have cost as much as the ISS. *LHC benefitted from
- an existing hole in the ground
- not being paid by USA taxpayers

ISS does other things. Just like Hubble does other things.


That's what I love. Whenever the subject of specific work or (gasp!)
results comes up in conjunction with talk of the ISS, all of a sudden
the vagueness becomes apparent.
  #6  
Old September 11th 08, 06:12 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Father Haskell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 118
Default Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS

On Sep 10, 8:40*pm, Davoud wrote:

Hubble does things other than serve as a telescope? Focuses starlight
to cook hot dogs, perhaps?


Tell that one to Shrub, maybe he'll grant funding for another
20 years.
  #7  
Old September 11th 08, 08:59 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS

On Sep 10, 1:23*pm, Rich wrote:
They could have built 4 colliders for the same cost as the white
elephant in space. Hey Americans, remember the Superconducting
Supercollider? *Too bad you abandoned it to the prairie dogs.


Of course, the scientists pushing the project bear part of the blame
for the waste of money. They knew they wouldn't have the votes in
Congress once a *location* for the project was decided, with it just
barely sneaking through earlier appropriations debates because many
representatives hoped it would end up creating jobs in *their*
districts.

This isn't the fault of the American people, therefore; it's the fault
of a structural flaw in the American political system.

John Savard
  #8  
Old September 11th 08, 11:06 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 595
Default Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS

On Sep 11, 9:59*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

This isn't the fault of the American people, therefore; it's the fault
of a structural flaw in the American political system.

John Savard


That would be the fatal flaw in democracy where one can only vote for
the candidates on offer?

Given 6 billion potential candidates to choose from, for the world's
most important position, the winner was chosen on the colour of his
pet pig's lipstick.

In a nationwide TV broadcast the losing candidate admitted his wife's
choice of jogging socks had completely wrecked his chances of becoming
the next US President. But that he had already forgiven her. She is
expected to leave the exclusive Cuban clinic after a few months of
intensive water therapy. He said that she had almost regained her
confidence in clothes designers and was expected to replace her entire
wardrobe by the next election.
  #9  
Old September 11th 08, 11:18 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
David Nakamoto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 183
Default Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS

Davoud wrote:
OG wrote:


But the SSC would have cost as much as the ISS. LHC benefitted from
- an existing hole in the ground


Digging the hole would have been the cheap part.

And they did start digging the hole, but then the politicians pulled the
plug, probably because the SSC wasn't sexy enough to the public.

- not being paid by USA taxpayers


Bzzzzt! The LHC has received at least $531 million in U.S. taxpayer
funding to date.


ISS does other things. Just like Hubble does other things.


Hubble does things other than serve as a telescope? Focuses starlight
to cook hot dogs, perhaps?

Anyway, this is moot. The American people don't need no stinkin'
accelerators or space telescopes to tell them about the Universe.
Everything they need to know is in the first chapter of Genesis.

Yup, Palin says so. If she gets in as VP, with the chance that McCain
will leave office for medical reasons before he completes his first term
at 1 out of 3 odds by some accounts, then God literally help us.

--- Dave

Davoud


  #10  
Old September 12th 08, 01:27 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Super collider a MUCH better investment than ISS

On Sep 11, 4:06 pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:59 pm, Quadibloc wrote:


This isn't the fault of the American people, therefore; it's the fault
of a structural flaw in the American political system.


That would be the fatal flaw in democracy where one can only vote for
the candidates on offer?


No. It has to do with the committee system.

John Savard
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
just now, go print a investment Catherine D. Haugrud Amateur Astronomy 0 November 14th 07 07:40 AM
Super Gravity & Super Spin Equivalent G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 0 April 1st 07 12:22 PM
private investment in the space industry Wesley Fredericks Policy 0 October 20th 04 11:07 PM
Will the investment flood happen? M. Scott Policy 26 July 17th 03 11:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.