🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug10.145127.7221@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
>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.

     Certainly that is true, and my comments are 'short-sighted' by definition.
     I think that funding decisions involving huge amounts of money *should*
     be 'short-sighted'.  However, you began this by commenting on a posting
     on speculations about Z branching ratios in biological systems.  
     This is clearly silly.

>> 
>>      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.

     You commented that the 'cost was small' compared to running the 
     experiments themselves.  If you wish to suggest that we study Z
     branching ratios in amoeba, I suggest you are goofy.

>>           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....

     No, this is like asking the government to fund your 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.

     That's wonderful.  It was YOUR speculation, not mine.  I was simply
     pointing out that your reasoning is somewhat unsupportable.

>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

      My point exactly.  Your two unsupportable assertions above are, well,
      unsupportable.

[analysis of previous huge government program deleted]

>> 
>>      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. 

     'Common sense' is hardly provides support for this assertion.  As
     far as experience goes, give me even a single example where the
     'cost per scientific discovery' is available for a project, much less
     a comparison of such numbers between thousands of little ones versus 
     one big one.

     I also suggest that we are *building* a custom facility for smashing
     protons together (unless, God forbid, they've started an SSC assembly
     line).

     I also suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree.

>>            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.

     This doesn't increase my confidence about the construction of the
     detectors.

>>            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?

     No, but I did not claim that mine was good for anything but what
     I'm applying it to.
>> 
>>      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 see the potential of x-rays as well as nuclear materials.  I 
     do not see the potential of the SSC.  Why do you not enlighten us
     as to its relevance in biological systems? (though please spare
     me tales of using the injector for cancer treatment)

>> 
>>      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".

     Actually, I was talking about your completely unsubstantiated 
     assertions, not specifically about the utility of the SSC.

>> 
>>      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?

     Just fine.  The wife and child are doing well.  Yours?


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