The Killing of the Superconducting Supercollider

In summary: The Superconducting Super Collider was a proposed particle physics research facility in Texas. It was designed to be the world's largest and most powerful particle accelerator, achieving speeds of up to 150 billion electron volts. However, the project was cancelled in 2009 due to its high cost and lack of promise for achieving scientific goals.
  • #1
Simfish
Gold Member
823
2
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00296

I'm a pro-science independent, but this thing really could influence my party affiliation.

Apparently, here is the Senate vote that killed it. It was also killed in the House of Reps (but I can't find the voting record for that). I'm kinda confused though. Is it the conservatives or the liberals who killed it here? (Senate voting is sooo confusing for me at least). Bumpers (D-AR) voted Nay and he said that "finding the origin of matter is good, but balancing the federal budget is better." So I'd think that he's vote for cancelling funds for the supercollider.

The Democrats are generally seen as pro-science, who want to shell in big bucks for research. And of coure, superconducting supercollider has little to do with defeating communism at this point so I'd expect the Republicans to vote against it. Still... I'm soo confused...

So... looking at the amendment. It says, sponsored by Bumpers. Yet, Bumpers voted Nay. Voting against his own amendment? I'm confused...

Can anyone care to clarify? Kerry voted Nay and he's the one critisizing Bush for Bush's science record. Also important to note is that the extremely liberal senators (Wellstone, Boxer) voted Nay and the extremely conservative ones (Helms, Thurmond) voted Yea.

Thanks...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's strange that they do not include an option to summarise the vote by party affiliation amongst the other summaries. But anyway, a quick tally and I determined this:

It appears at the time there were 56 Democrat senators and 44 Republican. 26 Democrats voted Yea and 29 Nay with one not voting. 31 Republicans voted Yea and 13 voted Nay. From the wording of the Statement of Purpose, it appears that a Yea vote is to terminate the project, not to keep it going.
 
  • #3
What's in a Name?

Looking at the votes it doesn't look very partisan to me.

The physics community could have picked a better name for the project than the Superconducting Super Collider. Sounds too much like a super-duper little toy for physicists to play with.

They could have given the program a better sounding name that might have been taken a bit more seriously. Maybe something like, "The Quantum Field Energy Research Project". Something that didn't sound so much like a big toy! In fact, the name I've suggested here may have even come across sounding like it might be important for military defense projects!

Can't blame it all on the politicians.

Superconducting Super Collider :confused:

I mean really,... :rolleyes:
 
  • #4
NeutronStar,

You think the project was canceled because people thought its name was funny? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

- Warren
 
  • #5
chroot said:
NeutronStar,

You think the project was canceled because people thought its name was funny? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

- Warren
You don't get out much do you :rofl:
Wouldn't even make the top ten thousand on my list.

Even worse
He is probably right. :grumpy: :cry:

Nowadays it seems that appearance is all. Content means nothing.
 
  • #6
I've heard stupider. Stupid has an infinite number of infinitely low probability outcomes.
 
  • #7
Simfishy said:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00296


Can anyone care to clarify? Kerry voted Nay and he's the one critisizing Bush for Bush's science record. Also important to note is that the extremely liberal senators (Wellstone, Boxer) voted Nay and the extremely conservative ones (Helms, Thurmond) voted Yea.

Thanks...

Kerry voted against killing the SSC
Wellstone and Boxer voted against killing the SSC

Helms and Thurmond voted for killing the SSC

what's the problem?

the 44 Republicans voted 31 in favor of killing SSC to 13 opposed.
(I am quoting AD, I didnt tally the votes)

what needs clarification?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Simfishy said:
The Democrats are generally seen as pro-science, who want to shell in big bucks for research. And of coure, superconducting supercollider has little to do with defeating communism at this point so I'd expect the Republicans to vote against it. Still... I'm soo confused...

I think the killing of the SSC was somehow sad but justified. The management of the project went completely wrong, and if I remember well, it had already spend 4 times the initial planned budget when it was 1/4 through the project. Even though I'm a particle physicist, and even though I think that the SSC was a great idea which was sad to close down, I can fully understand that when a project is approved, and it is slowly turning out that it will cost about 20 times more than initially proposed, you get the door on your nose.
 
  • #9
Making big superconducting magnets work reliably in these colliders is apparently no easy trick. Tevatron is down more than it's up, and LHC is having constructuon troubles reminiscent of the SSC.
 
  • #10
Heh i never considered that it could have been the name that was the problem.

I suppose if they had really wanted a name that would keep funding, they should have called it the "Civilian and Military Technology Enhancer."

In their blurb on it they could note that every major breakthrough in science has been accompanied by technological enhancement. Therefore, they are just doing this for society...
 
  • #11
Locrian said:
Heh i never considered that it could have been the name that was the problem.

I suppose if they had really wanted a name that would keep funding, they should have called it the "Civilian and Military Technology Enhancer."

In their blurb on it they could note that every major breakthrough in science has been accompanied by technological enhancement. Therefore, they are just doing this for society...

If the word "defense" is in the bill then the congresspeople will definitely vote to keep funding. Just say that the "Superconducting Supercollider (emphasis on the collider part)" can be used to "kill America's enemies" such as Communism, Terrorism, etc.
 
  • #12
Locrian said:
..."Civilian and Military Technology Enhancer."...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #13
selfAdjoint said:
Making big superconducting magnets work reliably in these colliders is apparently no easy trick. Tevatron is down more than it's up, and LHC is having constructuon troubles reminiscent of the SSC.

Indeed, and CERN also has big financial troubles (although I think they are finally clearing out the mess). There seem to be huge management problems with these kinds of projects. Maybe there's a law of nature that makes it impossible to be at the same time a bright physicist, a bright engineer, a great manager and a good friend to all of the political world who has to back you up :-)
 
  • #14
chroot said:
NeutronStar,

You think the project was canceled because people thought its name was funny? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

- Warren

Stranger things have happened.

When the Dyna-soar program (short for Dynamic Soaring; an alternative to the space shuttle) was cancelled, the name certainly played a part.

When non-scientists who possibly don't know what a superconductor _is_ are asked to fund millions of dollars for construction, it's certainly possible that the name would bias their judgements.
 
  • #15
Sounds to me it was close to a straight up-and-down party vote. Most members probably didn't think about it at all, but just voted what their leaders wanted. Who was that representative from Michigan who used to give the "golden goose" awards to scientific projects. He was probably the ring leader.
 
  • #16
Actually, a lot of prominent DNC leaders voted Yea: Biden, Byrd, Daschle, Feinstein, Lieberman, Reid. However, the majority leader - George Mitchell - voted Nay. The Republican minority leader (sweet, sweet words) voted "Yea". So, the official "party lines" would have been - reps yea, dems nay.

I hereby resurrect this thread in the name of Higgs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What was the Superconducting Supercollider?

The Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) was a particle accelerator project in the United States that aimed to be the most powerful in the world. It was designed to accelerate protons to energies of 20 TeV (tera-electron volts) for the purpose of studying the fundamental nature of matter.

2. Why was the Superconducting Supercollider cancelled?

The SSC project was cancelled in 1993 due to political and financial reasons. It was estimated to cost $12 billion to construct, and the US Congress was not willing to provide the necessary funding. Additionally, there were concerns about the potential risks and environmental impact of the project.

3. What were the potential benefits of the Superconducting Supercollider?

The SSC would have allowed scientists to study the fundamental particles and forces of nature at higher energies than ever before. This could have led to breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe and the development of new technologies such as medical imaging devices and energy sources.

4. Are there any alternative projects to the Superconducting Supercollider?

Yes, there are alternative projects such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Switzerland, which became operational in 2008. While the LHC is not as powerful as the SSC would have been, it has made significant discoveries in particle physics and continues to push the boundaries of our understanding of the universe.

5. Could the Superconducting Supercollider be resurrected in the future?

It is unlikely that the SSC project will be revived in its original form. However, there have been discussions about building a new particle accelerator in the US that could potentially achieve similar goals as the SSC. The final decision will depend on funding and political support.

Similar threads

News Why hasn't the United States ratified CEDAW?
    • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
5K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
    • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
4K
News Searching for the call for Kerry's DD SF-180
    • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
4K
News USA: Legal Frankenstein? Dehumanisation.
    • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top