Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
But you have decided the common man should pay for it?
|
The common man was going to pay for something. It was either $8billion for the super collider or $8billion for ISS. The super collider had scientific value. ISS did not. But ISS was an excellent platform to build a common trust between the US and Russia while teaching how the other thinks. American's approach scientific solutions is quite different from how the Russian do it. And getting both side to have their little people in direct communication and cooperation was right important to building trust.
Unfortunately, no one bothered to notice that the ISS budget of only $8billion was but a joke. Currently ISS has cost somewhere around $80billion - and still it will do no science. The basic super collider budget would have cost about what was budgeted - as demonstrated by other smaller and existing particle accelerators. AND the super collider would have been addressing serious fundamental science questions that currently are not answered by existing research tools.
So which do you want to pay for? $80+billion for the ISS that currently serves no purpose, or the super collider that would truly advance science and keep American in the forefront of breakthrough technologies? The latter costing about 1/10th the cost for many times more rewards.