"Concepts of superconductivity apparently are not understood. We so little understand the inner workings of superconductivity that we cannot even predict what can and can not be a superconductor - and why. Major breakthroughs included the BCS theory that explained something called phonons (no not photons). But again, to understand how these forces work, we need data that only a supercollider could have provided. Concepts including how strong forces, weak forces, etc all work, are interrelated, created, and controlled."
A flicker of understanding from the original author. The original researchers into superconductivity joked that they were more like witches mixing potions; a little yttrium, a little cobalt, and a dash of copper oxide, and bake at 350 degrees until the toothpick comes out clean, etc. The concepts of the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitic primary forces were conceived long before Fermi even thought of creating an atomic pile in a racquetball court. Supercolliders HAVE DONE NOTHING but to verify theories concerning basic, supermassive particles.
"Tell me about strained silicon - a new concept in IC development. Were these concepts developed from men trying to stay alive in the ISS - or from fundamental science learned from plasma and sub-atomic particle physics?"
"as to greater data storage - as to new materials that are faster, stronger, lighter, etc. "
Strained silicon, germanium, "doping" these and other elements to perform new unexpected tasks, and it's cousins from the field of molecular beam epitaxy have nothing to do with rings of magnets buried in the ground. Current plasma research was all that was required.
It seems as if the original author of this thread is making artificial distinctions between pure research and application research. Indeed, it can be said that any research into William Robert Grove's, 1838 discovery of the fuel cell and its principles is application research. It is a sometimes unfortunate fact that little separates pure and application research today; funders of such projects do expect some applications to be derived from the pure research aspects. However, anyone that does not have a favorable view on the so called "MBA" management style would have had insight enough to know this.
It can be noted with some irony that W. Grove's discovery had to wait 'til nearly the end of the 19th century for electrical research to reach a measure of fruition before the principles could be properly explored!
The morphing wings the author describe from his recent readings of Popular Mechanics is simply a rehash of the MAW, or Mission Adaptive Wing technology demonstrated on -- of all airplanes -- an F-111 bomber. The original author will no doubt delight in telling us of the cost overruns and miscalculations of McNamarra and his "whiz kids" over the F-111. Differing wing structures and their effects on sub, trans, and supersonic regimes can best be demonstrated by NASA's HiMat project. Boeing, and I am most certain Aribus, are working on differing airframe shapes to gain the best advantage of fuel savings and speed. My state is vying to be the primary assembler of Boeing's 7E7. To recap the concepts I've covered in this paragraph: The morphing wings described rely on application research, pure research by the "wrong" agency, and application research by a corporation. There are many MBA's employed at Boeing, which is a bit of a problem for Washington I must add with some amusement and chagrin.
"Why platinum and paladium[sic] work as they do - sub-atomic physics." Statements such as this sound dangerously like the quackery that brought Mssrs. Fleischmann and Pons into the limelight with their claims of so called "Cold Fusion". Platinum and Palladium are simply used as catalysts in the reactions the original author speaks of. To imagine they mystically but temporarily crack atoms into quarks is ludicrous. Ironically, in order to do such a thing as the author suggests, a supercollider is required, and the equivalent energies utilized by the United States in one year in the span of a second.
"Apparently Uryoces is using the myth that the space program resulted in numerous breakthrough technologies. In reality, the space program was only a consumer of products that were already marketed or developed for other purposes. If Uryoces was right, then the 8080 microprocessor was a direct result of the space program. In fact that propaganda was promoted in about 1970. Now for reality. The 8080 microprocessor was an existing technology also used by the space program and by other big budget programs such as the Minuteman missile program. What created the 8080 and it predecessors? Trying to make a calculator. There it is. Calculator development - not a space program - should be encouraged because it results in major technological breakthroughs."
This statement is so bizarre and snide, I don't have any comment.
"Uryoces - you were only insulted if you are emotionally attached to your conclusions. I read not one personal attack on you - not even close. Not a single reason to discuss blood. But the word blood says to me you are emotionally attached to your conclusions when you should be logically attached."
See my above statement. The original author of the article apparently has no sense of subtlety and wit; at least in this forum.
The common man needs to understand that the supercolliders ONLY purpose for existence is to confirm theories concerning basic, supermassive particles. Nothing that the original author of the thread has spoken of requires the Supercollider, or indeed any subatomic research.
I must point out here that the term "common man" sounds somewhat dirty and unflattering, as if such a person needs to have someone else's will forced upon them to shed their "commonness", as if they needed to pay attention to their betters. I reject this line of extremist thinking to which the original author subscribes.
I note with more irony the author and I both agree that the Superconducting Supercollider would be a worthwhile project. There is one method that WILL get it built. The goal and the method is to engage a person's imagination in the possibilities. The picture of the earth rising above the lunar surface taken by the crew of Apollo 8 showed that the world is indeed one single place, no convenient borders drawn across it. The Apollo moon landings have inspired the India, and China to develop new technological applications. The pure research has already been done by the United States and the ESA, if not for pure reasons.
Humanity will move out in to the solar system, sooner or later. The start is to make a sensible space program run with enthusiastic people of vision. To come back to the space shuttle, it's a very pretty ship that really couldn't pay its way. Designing and building a reasonable space program will allow the ISS to fulfill it's promise as a gateway. If we are able to launch several Apollo-type missions for the cost of one shuttle flight, we can keep humanity is space and learn the lessons that are needed to create successful lunar and Martian bases. The original author assumes I mean to send two (why two?) people there immediately. This is a strange assumption, and one of which I never spoke.
All of this requires belief, however. The original author has demonstrated that cynicism is a preferred mode of thought, to which I say cynicism is a tool, not a way of life.
"Oh Boy! Cigarette butts and Kodak wrappers all the way to mars. ":p
Sigh. You may be right on the money there...