5 ms·
There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about funding models and how CERN and, at least, the US differ. In the early 90s I was briefly on a small team to
by tacon 9y ago
There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about funding models and how CERN and, at least, the US differ. In the early 90s I was briefly on a small team to sell IBM Federal products to the nascent US supercollider project. (With a background in physics, I was referred to as their throwdown physicist.)
Then the supercollider was canceled, and later we called on CERN in Geneva to brief them on storage systems software and hardware, like hierarchical mass storage and linear tape robots. CERN had a nice mockup of the proposed LHC, where you climbed down a ladder into a fake tube, like what is bored underground. While we were down there, our hosts shared a shocking factoid with us. The US government canceled the proposed $12 billion supercollider project, and to exit all the contracts and fill in the holes that had already been dug was costing $650 million. CERN told us that for $650 million, they could build the LHC. I didn't verify their numbers, but their capital efficiency was stunning.
CERN is funded by all the European countries with a steady budget, and they are allowed to spend it however they wish. When CERN needs to build something big, they put some part of their steady funding into the bank, and it just sits their for however long it takes until they need it. By having steady, stable funding, they can make much more efficient use of their funds. As far as I can tell, there is little or no political heat about CERN's budget like "what have you done for us lately?"
The US, on the other hand, funds large projects out of special legislation in Congress, and everyone has to get their constituents a piece of the pie. This has some gross inefficiencies for large science projects. Appropriate hype is the motive force.
- dhimes 9y agoAppropriate hype is the motive force. You are exactly right on this. I was a physics grad student (not particles) when the Supercollider was being pitched. We had a colloquium on it, and the presenter kept repeating the slogan "5 years, 5 billion dollars." Most of us were savvy enough to know that such a claim was pure bullshit. But hey, if you convince them to start it they would never cancel it, right? And if you needed more money they would have to give it to you, right?
- morsch 9y agoThey ended up requiring quite a bit more than 650 million USD to build the LHC. CERNs yearly budget is about a billion.
- jcranmer 9y agoThe LHC cost approximately $4.4 billion to build, according to Wikipedia.
- okket 9y agoOr the equivalent of 3 Space Shuttle launches.
- acqq 9y agoThat's really the best way to compare the costs, bravo. The numbers are: 135 lauches, 196 billions total cost, which gives an average Shuttle launch cost of 1.452 billions.
- theptip 9y agoI get where you're all coming from, but the "average shuttle launch cost" as calculated in this thread is a misleading metric. It's not that close to the real price of launching a shuttle, but it sounds like it should be. The marginal cost of one additional shuttle launch isn't the same as the per-launch average across the whole program; the first launch was incredibly expensive (presumably in the tens of billions), and subsequent launches were less expensive. NASA claims $450M per launch[1] at the end of the program. [1]: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10 https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shutt...
- erikpukinskis 9y ago$450 million is equally misleading though, isn’t it?
- theptip 9y agoWhy is that?
- 9y ago
- athom 9y agoApropos of nothing, I don't believe they filled in ALL the holes down there. When I briefly worked for Dart Container, purveyors of the classic styrene foam J Cup, I learned they had just opened a MASSIVE new warehouse down in Texas, built in part of the tunnel system meant to become the home of the SSC. I got to see part of their warehousing up near Lansing, MI. Imagine a building the size of a jumbo jet hangar, packed to the rafters with NOTHING but boxes on boxes of J Cups. Now imagine another. I'm pretty sure the Lansing facility had at least two, and that still wasn't enough for the millions of cups they move each year. We use a lot of cups.
- telchar 9y agoThat's an obscene amount of polystyrene. Ugh. OT but I wish the stuff were never used.
- kwhitefoot 9y agoWhy on earth does one need to store so many cups? What ever happened to Just In Time manufacturing and delivery?