5 ms·

Isn't the largest science project in US the Superconducting Super Collider? Yes, it was cancelled, but JWST was almost cancelled as well.

by sanxiyn 11y ago

melling 11y ago
I'm not sure what you are trying to reason. X was cancelled but Y was almost cancelled. That makes no sense. According to Wikipedia, $2.2 billion was spent on the SSC before it was cancelled in 1993. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collid... It's unfortunate that it was never completed, it was going to be bigger than the LHC. Everything we are learning now could have been learned a generation ago.
- kjs3 11y ago
  Claiming we'd have learned everything the LHC taught us a generation ago also doesn't make much sense, considering the vast improvements in sensor technology and data handling that happened between the last generation and this. It's just as likely we'd have seen little or nothing because our "eyes" weren't sensitive enough or we couldn't find the needle in the data haystack.
  - jgalt212 11y ago
    Perhaps, but in high energy physics, size matters. Or at least size matters more than most other dimensions.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      I'd suggest computing matters more. The SSCO would have been crippled by the sensor and computing technology available at the time. It would have been able to make very small things go "boink" a lot, but it would have had problems capturing a fat enough stream of data to record the results. LHC wins because signals are statistical, and the more data you have the more reliably you can say "Uh huh - that's a real signal and not just one of those random things that happens sometimes." See also the current debate about whether or not something real is going "boink" at 750GeV.
    - kjs3 11y ago
      Only with respect to generating events, not with respect to detecting and analyzing them.
dalke 11y ago
Adjusted for inflation, the Manhattan project cost nearly US$ 2 billion in 1940s money, or about $26 billion in 2016 dollars says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project .
hoorayimhelping 11y ago
I'd wager on Apollo. $25.4 billion in 1973, adjusted to $109 billion in 2010 dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Costs
basch 11y ago
I'd argue Manhattan Project and Apollo are tied. They both could be measured in % of GDP, at .4% each.
- leephillips 11y ago
  I think it might have been better if the "largest" claim had not wound up part of the title, because it's led to a great deal of distracted quibbling. NASA claims that the Webb is its largest-ever science project, and others have judged it to be the largest in US history. If it's important, we can note that the Manhattan project was military, not science, although of course plenty of science was done there. Apollo might not be counted as a single project, or perhaps put in a different category (exploration rather than science?).
  - basch 11y ago
    Manhattan wasnt one project any more than Apollo was and most of the money went to Uranium enrichment. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-manhattan-project/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-m...
    - dalke 11y ago
      The page you linked to says: > Another way to look at this is to say that we usually talk about the atomic bomb as project focused on scientific research. But one could arguably say that it was more a project of industrial production instead. I emphasized the "a project of industrial production" to show that your own reference says that it is "one project", and it refers to the entire Manhattan project as a single project, and not multiple projects as you seem to argue.
      - basch 11y ago
        i tried to edit my comment to point that out, i ran out of time. i was somewhat agreeing with you except classifying it as industrial building construction instead of defense.

Isn't the largest science project in US the Superconducting Super Collider? Yes, it was cancelled, but JWST was almost cancelled as well.

by sanxiyn 11y ago

Isn't the largest science project in US the Superconducting Super Collider? Yes, it was cancelled, but JWST was almost cancelled as well.

melling 11y ago

I'm not sure what you are trying to reason. X was cancelled but Y was almost cancelled. That makes no sense. According to Wikipedia, $2.2 billion was spent on the SSC before it was cancelled in 1993. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collid... It's unfortunate that it was never completed, it was going to be bigger than the LHC. Everything we are learning now could have been learned a generation ago.

kjs3 11y ago
Claiming we'd have learned everything the LHC taught us a generation ago also doesn't make much sense, considering the vast improvements in sensor technology and data handling that happened between the last generation and this. It's just as likely we'd have seen little or nothing because our "eyes" weren't sensitive enough or we couldn't find the needle in the data haystack.
- jgalt212 11y ago
  Perhaps, but in high energy physics, size matters. Or at least size matters more than most other dimensions.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    I'd suggest computing matters more. The SSCO would have been crippled by the sensor and computing technology available at the time. It would have been able to make very small things go "boink" a lot, but it would have had problems capturing a fat enough stream of data to record the results. LHC wins because signals are statistical, and the more data you have the more reliably you can say "Uh huh - that's a real signal and not just one of those random things that happens sometimes." See also the current debate about whether or not something real is going "boink" at 750GeV.
  - kjs3 11y ago
    Only with respect to generating events, not with respect to detecting and analyzing them.

dalke 11y ago

Adjusted for inflation, the Manhattan project cost nearly US$ 2 billion in 1940s money, or about $26 billion in 2016 dollars says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project .

hoorayimhelping 11y ago

I'd wager on Apollo. $25.4 billion in 1973, adjusted to $109 billion in 2010 dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Costs

basch 11y ago

I'd argue Manhattan Project and Apollo are tied. They both could be measured in % of GDP, at .4% each.

leephillips 11y ago
I think it might have been better if the "largest" claim had not wound up part of the title, because it's led to a great deal of distracted quibbling. NASA claims that the Webb is its largest-ever science project, and others have judged it to be the largest in US history. If it's important, we can note that the Manhattan project was military, not science, although of course plenty of science was done there. Apollo might not be counted as a single project, or perhaps put in a different category (exploration rather than science?).
- basch 11y ago
  Manhattan wasnt one project any more than Apollo was and most of the money went to Uranium enrichment. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-manhattan-project/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-m...
  - dalke 11y ago
    The page you linked to says: > Another way to look at this is to say that we usually talk about the atomic bomb as project focused on scientific research. But one could arguably say that it was more a project of industrial production instead. I emphasized the "a project of industrial production" to show that your own reference says that it is "one project", and it refers to the entire Manhattan project as a single project, and not multiple projects as you seem to argue.
    - basch 11y ago
      i tried to edit my comment to point that out, i ran out of time. i was somewhat agreeing with you except classifying it as industrial building construction instead of defense.