2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

GLD 383.15

+0.8%

4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: energyplay who wrote (61155)	2/15/2010 1:12:31 AM
From: Webster Groves	Read Replies (1) of 218030

The SSC price tag was a total tag, not an annual cost like NIH. The $12B was also about the cost of the International Space Station, which of course has accomplished nothing but serves only as a place for the Shuttle to go. The loss of SSC for the US shifted the forefront of physics to Europe, where it remains to this day. To put matters into perspective, around the same time Congress had no problem on spending $20B on 20 B-2 bombers with no enemy to bomb. The project folded mainly because of political problems in Texas that led the governor to drop support. The idea that mismanagement was a major factor is absurd because all government projects are mismanaged. Regarding the rest of your comments, DARPA is part of the DOD, the NSF had historically always received peanuts, and material science is not a funded agency in itself but is spread out mostly through NSF and DOE. The money not spent on SSC was also not spent in these agencies and on many other worthwhile projects. wg

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next