🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
> 
> ????  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.
> 
> 

This comparison makes no sense since the proposed experiments of the
SSC can only be done on a machine like the SSC. Furthermore, comparison to
condensed matter experiments is like comparing apples to oranges.

However, the fact is that thousands of experiments are going to be performed
on the SSC over the 30 year life span employing hundreds of researchers.
An analysis of the cost which does not
take this into account is flawed. Furthermore, I have been involved in setting
up two condensed matter experiments and two electro-optics experiments. These
experiments cost millions of dollars and ran for one month to two years and
employed (on average) 2 to 7 researchers. You ratio that out.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave