🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug10.150519.7537@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>In article <10121@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite) writes:
 
>> In article <1992Aug7.192009.29866@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
 
>> >Furthermore, the cost per scientific discovery is always better 
>> >with a flexible device like the Supercollider.
 
 To which I responded:

>> ????  Documentation please.  A good place to start would be with
>> cost per discovery of other large accelerators.  A rough estimate of
>> cost per discovery for SSC would then be obtainable by ratioing the
>> cost of the tools (unless we can come up with a reason to believe
>> that SSC will make more or fewer discoveries than machines already
>> on line have done).  We could then compare this with cost per
>> discovery of advances made in other areas such as condensed matter
>> physics.
 
 "Stormin' Norman" responds:
 
>This comparison makes no sense since the proposed experiments of the
>SSC can only be done on a machine like the SSC. 

??? You are changing the subject again.  Your original post said
nothing about the particular experiments to be done with SSC.  It
only talked about scientific discoveries in general.  You made an
unsupported assertion about cost per scientific discovery.  The last
I checked, most people think of scientific discoveries as
discoveries in *any* field, not just HEP.  Even HEP includes more
than just what is to be studied at SSC.  Nobody argues with SSC as
the best currently available design for the experiments it is designed
for.  The question is, what is the best expenditure of available
money for science in general.  There are even new accelerating
techniques proposed which, if they come about, could obsolete SSC
rather quickly (and inexpensively).

Your unsupported assertion remains just that.  You haven't even told
us how you came to that conclusion.  Did you do any analysis or just
pick it out of the air?

>Furthermore, comparison to condensed matter experiments is like 
>comparing apples to oranges.

Not quite!  *You* used the term "scientific discovery."  Unless you
exclude condensed matter from science there is no reason to not
allow it for a cost comparison.  Please tell us why discovery of
the Higgs constitutes important science but understanding of high 
temperature superconductivity does not.