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

CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 16th 19, 05:12 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

  #2  
Old January 18th 19, 01:57 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486


And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.

  #3  
Old January 18th 19, 03:12 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486


And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving. A few years ago I had a holiday in Italy with a stopover
in Switzerland. Because of severe traffic problems we arrived at Ebbsfleet
station only 10 minutes before the departure of the Eurostar train to
Paris. We got through all embarkation procedure in nine minutes and were on
the platform when the train arrived. Try doing that at an airport.
High speed train coaches are much more pleasant than the cabins of
airliners. You can move around easily, there are large windows so you can
look at the scenery (or lack of scenery while you’re in the channel
tunnel).
Changing trains at Paris was a much less stressful experience than
airport transfers. And very much better than a transfer at Paris Charles de
Gaul airport, the worst airport I’ve ever been to. Arriving in Venice by
train where you the station entrance opens on to the Grand Canal is far
superior to flying to the nearby airport.


  #4  
Old January 18th 19, 03:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486


And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving.


[anecdotal opinions deleted]


Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short or medium hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route and at the destination.. Trains have the inflexibility of flying and the time savings are only somewhat better than what a car can manage if the train doesn't go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 (not including the cost of the tickets) assuming they ever have reason to ride it at all.


  #5  
Old January 18th 19, 03:54 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486


And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving.


[anecdotal opinions deleted]


Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short or medium hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route and at the destination.. Trains have the inflexibility of flying and the time savings are only somewhat better than what a car can manage if the train doesn't go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 even if they never have reason to ride it at all.

  #6  
Old January 18th 19, 04:15 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:12:54 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486


Now I'm glad we didn't. With the U.S. sliding into developing world
territory, becoming a has-been country, much of our scientific
infrastructure will be wasted. Better to see large projects like this
located in countries that have a future.
  #7  
Old January 18th 19, 04:59 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

Mike Collins wrote in

nal-september.org:

wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA
wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486


And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the
wasteful projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...ing-for-califo
rnias-over-budget-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF
but won't go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much
of a hurry, you can fly, at a cost to the environment, but not
your conscience, if you are a hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant
experience than flying or driving.


Pity the US isn't capable of building any high speed trains, only
dumping billions into welfare projects for unions that will never be
completed, and nobody will ride if they are.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

  #8  
Old January 18th 19, 05:00 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:42:10 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 18 January 2019 10:15:29 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:12:54 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

Now I'm glad we didn't. With the U.S. sliding into developing
world territory, becoming a has-been country, much of our
scientific infrastructure will be wasted. Better to see large
projects like this located in countries that have a future.


The greenloons have already begun crying about it in Europe,
that the money could be spent instead on plants to such C02 out
of the air, that kind of thing. Speaking of sliding toward
being part of the "Third World."


We don't need to sacrifice investment in scientific
infrastructure to build carbon sequestration systems and other
systems to minimize the impact of global warming.

Only if there's enough money to do both. People smarter than you (and
who isn't, you being a Chris and all) are skeptical that's the case.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

  #9  
Old January 18th 19, 05:42 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

On Friday, 18 January 2019 10:15:29 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:12:54 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486


Now I'm glad we didn't. With the U.S. sliding into developing world
territory, becoming a has-been country, much of our scientific
infrastructure will be wasted. Better to see large projects like this
located in countries that have a future.


The greenloons have already begun crying about it in Europe, that the money could be spent instead on plants to such C02 out of the air, that kind of thing. Speaking of sliding toward being part of the "Third World."
  #10  
Old January 18th 19, 05:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default CERN plans to build what the U.S. should have 23 years ago

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 08:42:10 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 18 January 2019 10:15:29 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:12:54 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486


Now I'm glad we didn't. With the U.S. sliding into developing world
territory, becoming a has-been country, much of our scientific
infrastructure will be wasted. Better to see large projects like this
located in countries that have a future.


The greenloons have already begun crying about it in Europe, that the money could be spent instead on plants to such C02 out of the air, that kind of thing. Speaking of sliding toward being part of the "Third World."


We don't need to sacrifice investment in scientific infrastructure to
build carbon sequestration systems and other systems to minimize the
impact of global warming.
 




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
The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a baseon the moon Sergio Astronomy Misc 3 April 18th 16 08:27 AM
The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base on the moon Robert Clark[_5_] History 1 April 8th 16 06:36 PM
Tomorrow, the 30-th of March, despite to our protests, CERN plans toperform the first collisions of protons with the energy 3.5 TeV per proton (7TeV per collision). Magnetic Policy 5 April 1st 10 03:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 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.