3 ms·
Is 9 billion a lot? as an american, It's hard to see that as more than the operational cost of a fighter jet. Just trying to manage the data from the LHC lead
by jfoutz 14y ago
Is 9 billion a lot? as an american, It's hard to see that as more than the operational cost of a fighter jet.
Just trying to manage the data from the LHC lead directly to the world wide web. I'm pretty sure there were a bunch of other technologies developed, like the superconducting cable that power those magnets, that will have a big long term payoff.
I mean, sure, it's a lot of money. I think we're getting NASA moon mission level of return on our money. Paying a bunch of smart people solve really hard problems does good things for everyone.
- eblume 14y agoI think you meant CERN, not LHC there. LHC was built rather recently, the web has been around far longer.
- zerostar07 14y agoI 'm a little wary whether we get our money's worth from those huge international projects like LHC or the ISS. I would like to see a comparison of the general impact that previous smaller collaborations had compared to projects of this size.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- theorique 14y agoas an american, It's hard to see that as more than the operational cost of a fighter jet. Not sure if you're being ironic but a fighter jet typically costs a couple of orders of magnitude less than $9B - even the hugely expensive JSF (F-35) is 'only' $200M unit cost.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- jfoutz 14y agoYou're right. My estimate is off by a bit over an order of magnitude for the f-22. they cost just under 50,000 an hour to operate (http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf) you could certainly operate more than 10 of them for 9 billion. I think a B-2 will come close to that though. 1 billion in todays dollars and 130,000 an hour for operational costs. -it's not actually 2000 a minute, there's a bunch of work before and after each flight.