🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug7.192009.29866@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.151909.10487@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> 
    [stuff about the possible Biochemical benefits of SSC research deleted]
>> 
>>      Somehow I don't think we should spend $10 billion to investigate
>>      this possibility.
>
>Since thousands of experiments are planned over the lifetime of the device,
>it is misleading to designate the whole cost to this. Your arguements fail
>because the Supercollider is not a single experiment, not a single project,
>but a device to do thousands of experiments and hundreds of projects which employ
>thousands of people. The cost per experiment is rather small compared to
>the cost of funding these same people to build and run independent experiments.
>Furthermore, the cost per scientific discovery is always better with a flexible
>device like the Supercollider.

     Right! he said sarcastically.  All of the experiments of limited
     current usefullness when added together make something well worth
     spending tens of billions of dollars on over its lifetime.

     I have only two comments on your unsubstantiated assertions,
     to wit:  

     1) 'The cost per experiment is rather small compared to the cost 
      of funding these same people to build and run independent experiments.'  

      My response is:

          a) To determine the augmented branching ratios for Z0-related
           stuff in biological systems?  How would one go about this using
           the SSC?  Or are we to do this while curing cancer with the 
           injector? 
          b) It it small compared to not running the experiments 
           at all?  
          c) If it is indeed possible to split up the work of the 
           SSC into separate entities (which I am not sure is possible),
           Where are your cost estimates for doing certain 'important'
           experiments separately vs. building the SSC.

     2)  'the cost per scientific discovery is always better with a 
      flexible device like the Supercollider'.  

      My response is:
           a) Who told you this? 
           b) How could one ever quantify this somewhat preposterous 
            assertion?  
           c) Is it flexible enough to wash my car?  Or balance 
            the national budget?  Or do anything other than bang
            particles together at high energy?

     I do not know how an educated person would not see the absurdity
     of the (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I believe) assertion that the 
     SSC has any essential relevance to biochemical systems.

     I repeat something I said recently in another context.
     That is, "Jes' because you say it, don't make it so."

     By the way, as a personal remark, I welcome you back from your hiatus.  
     It is always amusing to discuss this with you...

                             dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926