🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug7.203814.16330@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> 
> 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.

This is a short-sighted viewpoint since current usefulness is not necessarily
the goal of all good scientific research.

> 
>      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? 

I'm not a biologist. Ask the original poster.

>           b) It it small compared to not running the experiments 
>            at all?  

No pain, no gain.... why don't we stop doing anything and be happy with
our microwave ovens and Nintendo games....

>           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.

The vast majority of the experiments proposed REQUIRE the SSC so this
speculation doesn't make much sense. However, like all development projects,
there are costs associated with the planning and initial development that
are not duplicated when one machine is used for several experiments.

I will try to get some numbers from Fermilab. However, there is no real
context for comparison except to use the "historical precedence" of other
projects (i.e. space program). This is a prime example of costs ballooning due
to a lack of flexible infrastructure. Every project is trying to build
custom tools with limited functionality and it is costing us dearly.
For example, millions of analysis dollars are being spent on the space station
program because nobody had the foresight to put a complete set of vernier
jets on the orbiter (in the name of "saving" money). The solution? Propose
a new launch system with the capabilities the original one should have had in
the first place (shuttle 2).

> 
>      2)  'the cost per scientific discovery is always better with a 
>       flexible device like the Supercollider'.  
> 
>       My response is:
>            a) Who told you this?

Common sense and experience. Custom facilities with limited capabilities
has been one of the biggest headaches in the space program. 

>            b) How could one ever quantify this somewhat preposterous 
>             assertion?  

Easy, check out the cost of analysis for shuttle-SSF proximity operations due
to the inflexibility of the shuttle and lack of foresight used in its
development. Nobody bothered to take space construction complications
into account in its design.

>            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?

That is plenty flexible for the SSC's intended purpose. Has your research
balanced the national budget lately?

> 
>      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 guess you wouldn't have seen the potential of X-rays in medicine, or
nuclear materials in treatment of cancer,..... I have no real evidence
but I'm not foolish enough to make a statement that goes "There
will never be any relevance of field X in field Y". The reason I won't make
such a statement is BECAUSE I'm educated.

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

Since were speculating on the future, this statement is irrelevant. A
better statement would be "just because you say it's a waste of money, does
not mean that it will be".

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

I can't believe I'm involving myself in this discussion again.....

Hi Dale, how's the family?

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

Dr. Norman J. LaFave