Status and Plans of the United States and CERN High Energy Physics Programs and the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC): Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy Development and Applications of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, First Session, October 29, 1985

Front Cover
 

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 1304 - Costs, if any, that might be borne by SSC that are related to taxation, tax policy, tax revenue, impact payments or related matters. c. Employment Practices Employment practices and active Affirmative Action In implementing fair employment practices within the state and the region proposed for siting the SSC are of critical concern to this project. The SSC National Laboratory will be an Equal Opportunity employer. All qualified people will be eligible for employment and there will be no discrimination...
Page 587 - The man who insists upon seeing with perfect clearness before he decides, never decides.
Page 587 - Colorado, by the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society. The...
Page 4 - Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it's a pleasure to be here today.
Page 587 - ... Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) goal in light of recent scientific and technical developments, and to understand how this projet would affect and interact with the US High Energy Program in the period before it becomes operational. It is recommended that the SSC research and development be given the highest priority in the US High Energy Physics Program so that the project can proceed to an early construction start and rapid completion. A limited number of programs are identified as forefront...
Page 181 - The debates in 1965 further focused on the location of the new laboratory. While Berkeley had assumed throughout that the site would be in California, physicists and politicians in other states actively began to question this assumption. In April 1965, after receiving Colorado's independent site proposal, the AEC began to advertise for other proposals. One hundred and twenty-five were received, suggesting over 200 sites, with one or more from each of 46 states. By September 1965, the AEC had reduced...
Page 178 - Wilson wrote to Sands on 25 April 1961: 'I have been watching your efforts with the 300 GeV machine with open-mouthed admiration. It seems to me that you are working on the right problem and at the right time, and I am sure that something will come of it all.
Page 181 - AEC did not, and announced a cost ceiling of 240 million dollars, so that Berkeley had to prepare a 'reduced scope' design. The debates in 1965 further focused on the location of the new laboratory. While Berkeley had assumed throughout that the site would be in California, physicists and politicians in other states actively began to question this assumption. In April 1965, after receiving Colorado's independent site proposal, the AEC began to advertise for other proposals. One hundred and twenty-five...
Page 346 - Report of the 1985 High Energy Physics Advisory Panel study of the US High Energy physics Program...
Page 179 - It was generally agreed that for, say, 100 million dollars - or at most 200 million - it would be feasible to push the design of a conventional alternating gradient proton synchrotron to 100 GeV or even higher and that this might also cover the first round of experiments. With the same reasoning, but pushing the kind of tolerances that must be held, we could even think of attaining 1000 GeV and at a cost of less than one billion...

Bibliographic information