Jump to content

Superconducting Super Collider: Difference between revisions

Coordinates: 32°21′51″N 96°56′38″W / 32.36417°N 96.94389°W / 32.36417; -96.94389
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 276925550 by 69.246.199.109 (talk)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{articleissues}}
{{two other uses|the particle accelerator|the programming language|SuperCollider|the electronic duo|Super Collider (Band)}}
{{two other uses|the particle accelerator|the programming language|SuperCollider|the electronic duo|Super Collider (Band)}}
{{Hadron colliders
{{Hadron colliders

Revision as of 16:06, 22 March 2009

Template:Two other uses

The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) would have been the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator complex that was planned to be built mostly in Waxahachie, Texas. Its planned ring circumference is 87.1 km (54 miles) and an energy of 20 TeV per beam, potentially enough energy to create a Higgs boson, a particle predicted by the Standard Model, but not yet detected. The project's director was Roy Schwitters, a physicist at the University of Texas at Austin and Harvard University. The project was canceled in 1993.

Development

The system was first envisioned in the December 1983 National Reference Designs Study, which examined the technical and economic feasibility of a machine with the design capacity of 20 TeV per beam. After an extensive Department of Energy review during the mid-1980s, a site selection process began in 1987. The project was awarded to Texas in November 1988 and major construction began in 1991. Seventeen shafts were sunk and 23.5 km (14.6 miles) of tunnel were bored by late 1993.

Cancellation

During the design and the first construction stage, a heated debate ensued about the high cost of the project. In 1987, Congress was told the project could be completed for $4.4 billion, but by 1993 the cost projection exceeded $12 billion. An especially recurrent argument was the contrast with NASA's contribution to the International Space Station (ISS), which was of similar amount.[citation needed] Critics of the project argued that the US could not afford both of them.

A high-level schematic of the lab landscape during the final planning phases.

The project was canceled by the Congress in 1993. Many factors contributed to the shutdown of the project, although different parties disagree on which contributed the most. They include rising cost estimates, poor management by physicists and Department of Energy officials, the end of the need to prove the supremacy of American science with the collapse of the Soviet Union, belief that many smaller scientific experiments of equal merit could be funded for the same cost, Congress's desire to generally reduce spending, and the reluctance of Texas Governor Ann Richards [1] and President Bill Clinton to support a project begun during the administrations of Richards's predecessor, Bill Clements, and Clinton's predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. However, in 1993, Clinton attempted to prevent the cancellation by requesting that Congress continue "to support this important and challenging effort" through completion because "abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science..." [2] Despite Clinton's letter, Congress still cut all funding for the project.

The closing of the SSC held drastic ramifications for the southern part of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, and resulted in a mild recession made most evident in those parts of Dallas which lay south of the Trinity River.[3] At the time the project was cancelled, 22.5 km (14 miles) of tunnel and 17 shafts to the surface were already dug and nearly two billion dollars had already been spent on the massive facility.[4]

Comparison to the Large Hadron Collider

The SSC was designed to reach a higher energy than its recently completed European counterpart, the Large Hadron Collider (CERN, Geneva) with a planned collisions of 40 TeV versus 14 TeV.

The LHC is less expensive not only because of its smaller size, but also because of the already existing engineering infrastructure, built to host the previous accelerator Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP), which was hosted in a 27 km long underground cavern.

Current status of site

Entrance to the SSC site as of August 2008

After the project was canceled, the main site was deeded to Ellis County, Texas and the county tried numerous times to sell the property. The property was finally sold in August 2006 to an investment group led by the late J.B. Hunt.[5] Collider Data Center has contracted with GVA Cawley to market the site as a tier III or tier IV data center.[6] The site is currently unoccupied. However the site is occasionally used by the military to conduct training exercises. The site is generally well-maintained, with few (if any) broken windows, though some doors and locks have been forced open. Most of the signage (the most obvious artifact from the SSC era) has been removed since the closure of the project.

File:Ssc panorama.jpg
Panoramic view of the SSC site

Movie production

While owned by Ellis County, Texas, the site was used for several different purposes, including storage for the county and the production of Jimmy Wash's 1999 movie Universal Soldier: The Return.

See also

References

  1. ^ Alvin W. Trivelpiece (2005). "Some Observations on DOE's Role in Megascience". History of Physics Forum, American Physical Society. (PDF) Trivelpiece recounts hearing "about a conversation between the Governor of Texas, the Honorable Ann Richards, and President Clinton early in his administration. He asked her if she wanted to fight for the SSC. She said no. That meant it would no longer be an administration imperative...."
  2. ^ President Bill Clinton (1993). "Letter of June 16, 1993 to William H. Natcher, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations". Archived at Fermilab's High Energy Physics Information Center. In part, the text reads "As your Committee considers the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994, I want you to know of my continuing support for the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). ... Abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science - a position unquestioned for generations. These are tough economic times, yet our Administration supports this project as a part of its broad investment package in science and technology. ... I ask you to support this important and challenging effort."
  3. ^ Jeffrey Mervis (2003). "Scientists are long gone, but bitter memories remain". Science. 302 (5642): 40–41. doi:10.1126/science.302.5642.40. PMID 14526052. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ Jeffrey Mervis and Charles Seife (2003). "Lots of reasons, but few lessons". Science. 302 (5642): 38–40. doi:10.1126/science.302.5642.38. PMID 14526051. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Christine Perez (2006). "GVA Cawley to market former super collider". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Collider Data Center, LLC,
  6. ^ "High Profile Superconducting Super Collider Project from Early 90's Sees New Life". Superconductor Week. August 16, 2006.

External links

32°21′51″N 96°56′38″W / 32.36417°N 96.94389°W / 32.36417; -96.94389