5 ms·

The cost of the B-2 Bomber program has cost as much as ~5 Large Hadron Colliders. B-2 bomber program cost 44.75 billion[1] LHC cost ~7.5 Billion Euro ~9billion

The cost of the B-2 Bomber program has cost as much as ~5 Large Hadron Colliders. B-2 bomber program cost 44.75 billion[1] LHC cost ~7.5 Billion Euro ~9billion USD.[2] [1] http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost

Oculus 13y ago
The B-2 Bomber is child's play compared to the F-35's 1 Trillion USD program [1], but the comparison to the LHC's pricetag really puts things in prespective. 1: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82S03L20120329 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighte...
- dmix 13y ago
  Or even better failed military projects, such as the $25+ billion spent on a spy satellite project before it was killed in 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office#Future_Imagery_Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office...
  - amcnett 13y ago
    The F-35 is not exactly a resounding success: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter...
    - protomyth 13y ago
      No, at this point we should have built more F-22s for air-to-air. Strange how the "cheap" program is now the expensive one.
    - arethuza 13y ago
      It must be a resounding success - the UK is about to commit to buying some - like we committed to buying Skybolt and the F-111 (cancelling the awesome home grown TSR 2 in the process): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2
deletes 13y ago
Yeah... I see no benefit in those, having a few more colliders instead would be really great. Or just start building the next version already!
- Zancarius 13y ago
  > Yeah... I see no benefit in those, having a few more colliders instead would be really great. That's because you're seeing it through the lens of our time. Remember, the B-2, and many other programs including the F-22, were devised during the trailing end of the Cold War (edit: that's actually a lie; the call for contracts and other such nonsense that would lead to the B-2 started in the 70s, and the F-22 program had existed in some form since the very early 80s). Whatever your conviction about whether or not such things should exist, government (and their militaries) in particular has a great deal of inertia, both in terms of expenditures and policies. So while both programs were in full swing during the collapse of the USSR, that era is primarily what laid the groundwork for such expenses. Personally, I'm a fan of both. I love the hardware used in high energy physics. And I love military hardware. If I were about 15 years younger and lived in a wetter climate, I'd go outside and splash in the mud right now. ;)
  - Noughmad 13y ago
    The Supercoducting Supercollider was started during the Cold War too, but that didn't stop anyone from cancelling it half-way through.
    - deletes 13y ago
      Can I just say, that Superconducting Supercollider is the most awesome name for a device ever, and should be used for the next version.
      - Zancarius 13y ago
        Then they should hire Ellen McLain, the voice actress who did GLaDoS, to narrate a documentary on the Super-conducting Super-collider.
Gravityloss 13y ago
Here's another article that looks at some acquisition programs just by the US Marines. Navy, Army and Air Force acquisitions are often much bigger. Scroll for the tables. http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/ace-ate-marine-corps http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/ace-ate-marine-co...
adventured 13y ago
I'd like to have a few more satellites that have the impact of a hubble. That cost ~$4b inflation adjusted.
gnoway 13y ago
Does this adjust for inflation? Because I think if not, these numbers are even more alarming.
Florin_Andrei 13y ago
> The cost of the B-2 Bomber program has cost as much as ~5 Large Hadron Colliders. This is the kind of thing that makes me really wanna ragequit on human nature.

Oculus 13y ago

The B-2 Bomber is child's play compared to the F-35's 1 Trillion USD program [1], but the comparison to the LHC's pricetag really puts things in prespective. 1: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82S03L20120329 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighte...

dmix 13y ago
Or even better failed military projects, such as the $25+ billion spent on a spy satellite project before it was killed in 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office#Future_Imagery_Architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office...
- amcnett 13y ago
  The F-35 is not exactly a resounding success: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter-too-big-to-kill-as-lockheed-hooks-45-states.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter...
  - protomyth 13y ago
    No, at this point we should have built more F-22s for air-to-air. Strange how the "cheap" program is now the expensive one.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    It must be a resounding success - the UK is about to commit to buying some - like we committed to buying Skybolt and the F-111 (cancelling the awesome home grown TSR 2 in the process): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2

deletes 13y ago

Yeah... I see no benefit in those, having a few more colliders instead would be really great. Or just start building the next version already!

Zancarius 13y ago
> Yeah... I see no benefit in those, having a few more colliders instead would be really great. That's because you're seeing it through the lens of our time. Remember, the B-2, and many other programs including the F-22, were devised during the trailing end of the Cold War (edit: that's actually a lie; the call for contracts and other such nonsense that would lead to the B-2 started in the 70s, and the F-22 program had existed in some form since the very early 80s). Whatever your conviction about whether or not such things should exist, government (and their militaries) in particular has a great deal of inertia, both in terms of expenditures and policies. So while both programs were in full swing during the collapse of the USSR, that era is primarily what laid the groundwork for such expenses. Personally, I'm a fan of both. I love the hardware used in high energy physics. And I love military hardware. If I were about 15 years younger and lived in a wetter climate, I'd go outside and splash in the mud right now. ;)
- Noughmad 13y ago
  The Supercoducting Supercollider was started during the Cold War too, but that didn't stop anyone from cancelling it half-way through.
  - deletes 13y ago
    Can I just say, that Superconducting Supercollider is the most awesome name for a device ever, and should be used for the next version.
    - Zancarius 13y ago
      Then they should hire Ellen McLain, the voice actress who did GLaDoS, to narrate a documentary on the Super-conducting Super-collider.

Gravityloss 13y ago

Here's another article that looks at some acquisition programs just by the US Marines. Navy, Army and Air Force acquisitions are often much bigger. Scroll for the tables. http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/ace-ate-marine-corps http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/ace-ate-marine-co...

adventured 13y ago

I'd like to have a few more satellites that have the impact of a hubble. That cost ~$4b inflation adjusted.

gnoway 13y ago

Does this adjust for inflation? Because I think if not, these numbers are even more alarming.

Florin_Andrei 13y ago

> The cost of the B-2 Bomber program has cost as much as ~5 Large Hadron Colliders. This is the kind of thing that makes me really wanna ragequit on human nature.