This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
Where is the site located in Waxahachie?
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
Where is the site located in Waxahachie?
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)