The cold war was over, and discoveries at the SSC were not going to produce anything of immediate practical importance.

They were eager to show that they could cut what they saw as Texas pork, and they didn’t feel that much was at stake. Spending for the SSC had become a target for a new class of congressmen elected in 1992. Even so, the SSC met all technical challenges, and could have been completed for about what has been spent on the LHC, and completed a decade earlier. This stretched out the time and hence the cost to complete the project. Projected costs did increase, but the main reason was that, year by year, Congress never supplied sufficient funds to keep to the planned rate of spending. There was even nonsense in the press about spending on potted plants for the corridors of the administration building. One thing that killed the SSC was an undeserved reputation for over-spending. After the expenditure of almost two billion dollars and thousands of man-years, the SSC was dead. Funding was restored by a House–Senate conference committee, but the next year the same happened again, and this time the House would not go along with the recommendation of the conference committee. Then in 1992 the House of Representatives canceled funding for the SSC. It's called The Crisis of Big Science and it contains the following quotes: In that sense, this new knowledge has all to do with honor and country but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending.įollowing the suggestion by Jorg I have found this article by Steven Weinberg published in The New York Review of Books on the issue. Otherwise, it has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things that we really venerate and honor in our country and are patriotic about. Only from a long-range point of view, of a developing technology. Is there anything here that projects us in a position of being competitive with the Russians, with regard to this race?ĭR. (.) It only has to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. Is there anything connected in the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?ĭR.

Wilson’s Congressional Testimony (April 17, 1969, p. Faulkner, Varian-Continental Joe Barton (R), Texas, 6th Dist.Fermilab director R. The second panel addressed the congressional perspective on SSe. The first panel discussed the growing role of industry in accelerator technology. Gilchriese, SSC Central Design Group Robert Hunter, Director, Office of Energy Research, (DOE) Leon Lederman, Director, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Roy Schwitters, Director, SSC Laboratory Alvin Trivelpiece, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Gus Voss, DESY Highlights of the symposium included two panel sessions. Director, Texas National Research Laboratory Commission James Decker, Deputy Director, Office of Energy Research, (DOE) Helen Edwards, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory M. Keynote speakers included: Gerald 'Bachy, CERN Joe Barton, Representative from Texas, 6th Disctrict Ed Bingler, Exec. The award was presented on behalf of the IISSC Board of Directors. Tigner for his meritorious contribution to the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC). A special award was presented to Professor M. all aspects of the SSC including: Magnet Technology Cryogenics Conventional Facilities Technical Systems Detectors Related Accelerator Technology Superconducting Wire/Cable ApproXimately 38% of the presentations addressed superconducting magnet technology, 16% were devoted to detector technology, 10% addressed superconducting wire/ cable, and the balance was equally split between the remaining topics. A total of 110 presentations and addresses were given. A total of 635 people attended this educational forum which was dedicated to further the understanding of the design, construction and operation of the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC).

Superconducting supercollider