Talk:Superconducting Super Collider

Alot of wrong info, source: Smithsonian American History Museum

I visited the Smithsonian American History Museum yesterday and there was a good size section on the SSC, their info cited and some listed here: [1] conflicts with alot of the info on this page!!!!!

I hope to go back soon and take notes for posting on this page, if I can get permission from the Smithsonian i'll post pictures from there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.155.172 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a lot of the info is incorrect or missing. I worked in the SSC Central Design Group for a few years and have first-hand knowledge of some of this. For example, Louis Ianniello was never Project Director of the SSC Laboratory. He was a Department of Energy civil servant and served as Acting Associate Director of the Office of the SSC in the Forestal building in Washington DC. Maury Tigner, the director of the Reference Design Study and director of the Central Design Group was in line as the first SSC Lab director, but resigned beforehand. Roy Schwitters became the director instead. There was no other SSC Lab or CDG director between Tigner and Schwitters. I'd love to fix this in the first paragraph, but it's not open for me to edit. Jack-z (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment

Just a retarded question: why does the article Clinton undermined the project for banal partisan reasons, when the only reliable sources quoted say that he supported the project as a way of continuing to demonstrate US science leadership?

I don't think we should be citing the Cato Inst. as a unbiased source for this article. Esp. on a government project that was shutdown due to budgetary concerns. Find a more neutral source - not an anti-government spending libertarian think tank. - Ben

what does it do? or, what would it have done had it not shut down. is it an energy source? what the flip is it?

It is a particle accelerator. They generally work to make it so that particles (i.e. atoms, isotopes, molecules, etc.) can be accelerated to great speeds, and often run into each other, and things like that. It would have let them do certain types of scientific experiments, nothing more, nothing less. It would probably have consumed a huge amount of power and would have produced likely none at all.

Seem pointless? The reason the federal government funds this sort of work at all (though it didn't in this case) was because such seemingly pointless devices (beginning with the cyclotron) resulted in some fairly practical things... (And no, it's probably not a coincidence that the SSC was scrapped just after the end of the Cold War) --Fastfission 01:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

To add to what Fastfission said, it's contribution to theoretical physics would have been to either support a grand unification theory based on the existence of a Higgs boson, or to provide data upon which to modify the theory (the buzzword was "new science"). Other accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) were not originally believed capable of testing for the Higgs, but high-energy physicists have changed their minds, arguably by lowering their standards.

The LHC's Wikipedia article, for the most part, explains what a dumbed-down version of the SSC does. Colliders like these are often compared to extremely-high-powered microscopes capable of "looking" deep inside atoms where no other microscopes can "see." If these colliders are like microscopes, then their GeV or TeV ratings (with "light particles") could be said to be like "magnification" factors. The LHC can do 14 TeV, whereas the SSC would have done 40 TeV. The LHC hopes to improve its TeV rating by using "heavy particles", which could generate up to 1150 TeV, but how useful such collisions would be in finding the Higgs is a matter of debate.

The practical benefits of the primary scientific mission of the SSC amounted to a gamble. Every similar project had established scientific principles that had paid off in many ways-- some purely academic that only physicists cared about, some we use every day, like nuclear energy. However, no one could guarantee that the SSC would find anything useful as a result of its main mission-- it could have been a panacea of science, or it could have showed us no more than we already knew, or something we couldn't find a way to use for any practical purpose.

As a result of the unpredictability of the SSC's exploratory science, proponents tended to talk in terms of the more tangible, and more certain, indirect benefits of the various technologies that were being engineered to help build and operate the SSC. The defense department was keenly interested in how to contain and control intense particle beams and matter/antimatter collisions. The Department of Energy was interested in how it was producing and consuming energy. Waste radiation was being piped to a cancer treatment facility. Research into its superconducting electromagnets (used in containing and controlling the beam) led to advances in mass transit by train and by sea, particularly in Japan. One of the more humorous possibilities was for a cure to male pattern baldness. Such odd claims may have contributed to the project's failure to be taken seriously by many Washington politicians.

I'm rattling this off from memory so don't move these numbers to the main article without checking them-- but if I recall, the initial cost was projected at $8 billion. In the initial pitch to Congress, scientists were hopeful of getting other nations, particularly Japan, to help fund up to half of the project. About $3 billion into the project, the cost projection was raised to $11 billion, and Japan decided to withdraw its grants to cover losses from building a portion of the international space station (a large portion which could no longer be used after Congress forced NASA to redesign a smaller station on a smaller budget). With budget overruns and foreign money drying up during an election year, Congress voted to spend $2 billion to mothball the SSC, then agreed to give the scientists one year to raise matching funds, which they failed to do. I belive cleanup also ran over budget to about $4 billion.

After the election, Congress voted to spend about $40 billion bailing out Russia and $20 billion bailing out the Mexican economy. Some recently unemployed (and soon to be unemployed) physicists complained that if Russia and Mexico could do with slightly less U.S. taxpayer money, we could finish the SSC "right here in America" and keep "the most highly educated workforce in the world" from fleeing to CERN. Political opponents accused these physicists and politicians of being excessively patriotic and out of touch.

Political opposition to the SSC came primarily from uneducated incumbents who discussed the SSC only as if it were nothing more than a big pork barrel project for Texas, They asserted most voters would not understand any benefit gained from the SSC, so it became an easy target for those wanting to make a grand gesture of "fiscal responsibility" (never mind the real pork-barrel projects in their own states). Some pundits believed Texas was targeted for the gesture because angering that state would have the least negative impact on the election for Democrats, who had a comfortable majority in both houses at the time; who did not expect to gain any seats or electoral votes from Texas; and who were fighting a "tax-and-spend" perception among voters in some hotly contested elections.

As a result of the political debate, many scientists adjusted their opinion of the SSC after it was canned. Some on the political right who initially opposed the SSC as too risky and wasteful later bemoaned the short-sightedness of the left in matters of important science. Some on the left had originally championed the fight for the progress of "the most important scientific laboratory of all time," "the cathedrals of science," but would later attempt to marginalize the project as if it would not have served as much of a practical purpose, as, say, SETI or the study of the mating rituals of the woolly mammoth. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Its results were a gamble from the beginning-- worth risking $8 billion, but maybe not $16 billion.

What is the most important legacy of the SSC? Most of the physicists continue their work elsewhere, but no grand unification theory or string theory has been proven, and the Higgs remains elusive. However, one of the more interesting footnotes to history is that the SSC led directly to the creation of the World Wide Web (well, more directly than Al Gore). SSC physicists who needed to collaborate with CERN physicists wanted access over the Internet to the CERN phone database, for which Tim Berners-Lee invented HTTP and HTML. Some SSC physicists in Dallas were among the first to access the first Web server (the CERN phone book) using some customizations to Apple's HyperCard, as well as by coding some of the first standalone Web browsers. Use of SSC's HyperCard scripts to access the CERN phone book in Summer 1992 was followed by the transmission of full HyperCard stacks over HTTP, which is considered by some to be the first use of the Web to serve and retrieve graphics, scripts, forms, and GUI elements. However, the HyperCard stacks and cards were encoded in a custom SGML language called GUIML instead of HTML; used the HyperTalk scripting language instead of JavaScript; and sent images by compressing something called a "resource fork" rather than as a typical image format. About 6 months later, NCSA's Marc Andreessen built Mosaic. Strange, but true.

That's about as much as I recall from my time there. No time to refine memories into a worthy article yet, but perhaps this much will help lead researchers to good information. —This unsigned comment was added by 70.179.158.84 (talk • contribs) 04:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC).

Improvements coming

After I finish my history of physics paper on the SCC, I'll pimp this article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

SSC in pop culture

There is at least one scifi novel, Einstein's Bridge by John Cramer, which features the SSC and its cancellation as an integral plot device. There is also the song Supercollider by the band Tribe which is a fictionalized account of a scientist working at the SSC. Would this article be enhanced by inclusion of either or both of these pop references? 24.161.67.9 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, you can see an arial of the site in Google Earth or other mapping software at 32°21'48.36"N 96°56'43.35"W Jdblundell 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I already put a map link at the bottom of the page Gunter 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Added "fictionrefs" template. The West Wing one is particularly tenuous. But all them need to assessed on their merits. Oosh (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is of note or not, but there is a youtube documentary by BobbyBroccoli about the SSC and the bureaucracy and diplomatic affairs around that time. heres the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xSUwgg1L4g&t=20s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.193.8 (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

alleged copyright infringement

Near as I can tell, there are only two potentially infringing paragraphs. The first paragraph in the Cancellation section and all the sentances in the first paragraph, save for the last one.

I would proposal that we delete the first paragraph of the Cancellation section and and rewrite the intro paragraph, however, I'm not going to propose because I don't think Wikipedia is the website doing the infringing.

Here's the article as it looked on 27 June 2004:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Superconducting_Super_Collider&oldid=4891237

The "A Brief Overview" section of the rootsweb.com website is an exact copy of this.

Further, take a look at archive.org's copy of the rootsweb.com website:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.rootsweb.com/~txecm/super_collider.htm

Their first archive of that website is on 03 Sept 2004.

My theory is this. That this txecm user at rootsweb.com copied wikipedia.org. In that case, changing wikipedia.org when they're the ones who did the copying is something that I would consider to be almost offensive. TerraFrost 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

if that be the case than no problem is involved, good job at the archive researching. I know that some websites do this and it is often questionable who has done the copying. --MJHankel 22:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Urban Exploration

This site is a large attraction for Urban Explorers and Vandals alike. Many of the doors and windows have been broken. I have pictures, if I can find them. SpigotMap 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, put'em online. --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 15:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the site located in Waxahachie?

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Location?

The first paragraph states the SSC was to be built in Utah, but construction obviously began in Texas. Is anyone else confused by this? Projectbluebird (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The hole in the heart of Texas is the trouble created by themselves, because they tried this with no previous experience of building accelerator. Nevertheless if the newly built LHC is successfully operated, one might consider the reconstruction of SSC. One must, however, still care about the small chance that the tiny miniuniverse, created by the state corresponding to even million years after the Big Bang, would easily and abruptly wipe out our solar system, earth and so on. In other words they should never try to build this totally useless, harmful and stupid machine, because the energy of SSC is high enough to doom the whole Texas to destruction. Yuletide11 (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My father said that his grandmother (I think) signed a lease under her farm for this and she lived in Waxahachie. The town is in Ellis County. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

SCSC

Currently, SCSC redirects to the "Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs." I've often seen SCSC used in reference to this, so if noone has any objection I'll disambiguate it in a couple of days. I'm also leaving a note there, pointing to this discussion here. Joe (Talk) 22:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, changed. Joe (Talk) 19:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

articles

• Who’s afraid of the Superconducting Super Collider? October 29, 2009
• Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) Ellis County, Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.138.233 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• The Crisis in Big Science by Steven Weinberg (2010) I just paid $10 to read this article but it was money well spent Neilrieck (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Congress

"Congress officially canceled the project October 21, 1993 after $2 billion had been spent."

If con is the opposite of pro, what is the opposite of progress? ---Dagme (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to find official numbers on "Star Wars" (a.k.a. the Strategic Defense Initiative) so we need to rely upon articles like this 1984 NY-Times article which mentions an estimate of 400-800 billion. Now no one is saying that 400 billion was ever spent but 2-8 billion for the SCC seems to be chump-change by comparison Neilrieck (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Other reasons, besides expense, for opposition to SSC

The article omits two important reasons for opposition to the Supercollider within the scientific community: it was very unlikely to yield profitable or useful applications or technological spinoffs (too many bucks for too little innovative hi-tech bang), and, its results would have been meaningful only to a very small number of scientists, all in the same ultra-specialized sub-field (too esoteric). HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Magnet design, materials, development

What can be said about the SC Magnet design, materials, development. It seems, from hints in abstracts, they were in some way based on those used in Tevatron at Fermilab. To use Nb-Ti ? and the dipole magnets needed to create 6.6 tesla fields. Any open access sources ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a publication documenting the magnet design details from the SSC's Conceptual Design written at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. It was produced by the SSC Central Design Group in 1986. I worked in the CDG until the SSC moved to Texas, then I continued in the Magnet Design group for a few years. It jogs my memory to read it. Jack-z (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Weasel words in "Comparison with Large Hadron Collider"

Paragraph 2 of the section reads like a stale grievance and lacks sourcing of any kind. A claim is made (using "conventional facility buildout" jargon) about the actual budget share of tunneling — followed by a claim that magnets were actually "the major cost item," avoiding clarity about whether magnets were the principal or largest budget item. The few verifiable statements are unsourced. It's tempting to delete the paragraph. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)