The supercollider: The Texas days: A personal recollection of its short life and demise

Reviews of Accelerator Science and Technology: Volume 2: Medical Applications of Accelerators

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 265-302

  Wojcicki, Stanley ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accelerator; Congress; DOE; SSC; Supercollider; Texas

Indexed keywords

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PARTICLE ACCELERATORS;

ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES; CONGRESS; CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS; EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM; INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS; SUPERCOLLIDER; SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER-COLLIDER; TEXAS;

TELLURIUM COMPOUNDS;

EID: 84973171632     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1142/9789814299350_0013     Document Type: Chapter

References (170)

1. The pre-Waxachachie SSC-related events are described in: S. Wojcicki, “The Supercollider — the pre-Texas days, Reviews of Accelerator Science and Technology (World Scientific, 2008), Vol. 1, pp. 259-302.
2. M. Crawford, Science 245, 25 (1989).
3. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 42, 51 (1989).
4. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 43, 45 (1990).
5. McDaniel’s handwritten notes from the September 27,1988, interviews at the CDG (from the Cornell archives) and comments made to the author by some of the interviewees.
6. Letter from R. Schwitters to M. Tigner, dated September 19, 1988.
7. Memorandum from Edward A. Knapp, URA President, to the staff of the URA/SSC Central Design Group, dated January 25, 1989.
8. Letter from R. Schwitters to S. Wojcicki dated August 23, 1989, and Wojcicki’s response of August 31.
9. Everyone I talked to who was at the SSC during its early Texas days agreed that the Sverdrup partnership was a disaster. A generous way to summarize their opinions about Sverdrup staff at the SSC would be to say that they were not very competent and rather uninterested.
10. It was this organization that was presented to HEPAP at HEPAP’s first meeting on the SSC site, on January 4 and 5, 1991.
11. Science 251, 1551 (1991).
12. For a detailed discussion on the two-culture syndrome at the SSCL, see M. Riordan, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 32, Part 1, 125 (2001).
13. Report of the SSC Collider Dipole Review Panel, eds. G. Voss and T. Kirk (June 1989, SSC-SR-1040).
14. S. Dickman and G. C. Anderson, Nature 343, 343 (1990).
15. T. Garavaglia, S. K. Kaufmann, R. Stiening and D. M. Ritson, SSCL-268 (Apr. 1990).
16. SSC Laboratory report SSC-SR-1040.
17. M. Crawford, Science 245, 809 (1989).
18. B. Schwarzschild, Phys. Today 47 (1990).
19. M. Crawford, Science 247, 153 (1990).
20. D. H. Hamilton, Science 249, 731 (1990).
21. Accelerator design status. Presentation by Don Edwards at the HEPAP Meeting, Jan. 4, 1991.
22. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on SSC Physics, SSC-250/Rev., Dec. 1989 (revised: Apr. 1990). This report did not make a very strong case for the need to go to 40TeV. It stated that “total energy anywhere in the range from 30 to 40TeV would provide an enormous increase in physics capability.” The loss in the rate for production of heavy particles was estimated at 25% for each 5 TeV decrease.
23. Minutes of the BOO’s Executive Committee meeting on November 21, 1989.
24. Report of the 1990 HEPAP Subpanel on SSC Physics (DOE-ER-0434, Jan. 1990).
25. R. J. Smith, Full-scale super collider urged despite rise in cost, The Washington Post Jan. 11 (1990).
26. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 43, 67 (1990).
27. SSCL Site-Specific Conceptual Design (SSCL-SR-1056, July 1990).
28. Report of the HEPAP Subpanel on SSC cost estimate oversight (D0E/ER-0464P, July 1990).
29. Report of the DOE Office of Energy Research Review Committee on the Site-Specific Conceptual Design of the Superconducting Super Collider (DOE/ER-0463P, Sept. 1990).
30. DOE Report on the SSC cost and schedule baseline (DOE/ER-0468P, Jan. 1991).
31. D. P. Hamilton, Science 251, 741 (1991).
32. Personal conversation with Panofsky and minutes of the Joint Informational Meeting of the URA Board of Trustees and the SSC Board of Overseers (Arlington, Virginia, USA; Dec. 19, 1989).
33. W. K. H. Panofsky, Panofsky on Physics, Politics and Peace (Springer, 2007), p. 144.
34. CERN Courier (Jan./Feb. 1992), p. 12.
35. This account of these issues and events is based on minutes of the BOO’s meetings in 1989, Panofsky’s memos to the BOO file, and Panofsky-McDaniel correspondence (in the Cornell archives).
36. Minutes of the Meeting of the SSC Board of Overseers (Oct. 4-5, 1989).
37. Interview with Joe Cipriano, Super Collider News (May 1991), pp. 3-7.
38. High energy physics research and the Superconducting Super Collider: DOE policies and practices. DOE document, Aug. 1992.
39. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 43, 45 (1990).
40. Office of Inspector General, Special Report on the Department of Energy’s Superconducting Super Collider Program (DOE-IG-0291, Nov. 16, 1990).
41. Status of DOE’s Superconducting Super Collider, (GAO Report GAO/RCED-91-116, Apr. 1991).
42. Letter from Secretary Watkins to Jamie L. Whitten, Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, dated May 8, 1991.
43. Letter from S. Wojcicki, HEPAP chair, to Hensen Moore, Deputy Secretary of DOE, dated Oct. 4, 1990.
44. Minutes of the Meeting of the SSC Board of Overseers, BNL (July 28, 1989).
45. Letter from R. Schwitters to the US HEP community, dated Apr. 10, 1989.
46. Summary of the Meeting and Recommendations of the Superconducting Super Collider Program Advisory Committee (Snowmass, Colorado, USA; July 1990). The need to have two new general purpose detectors at the start was not held universally. The SPC recommended at least one general purpose detector. Leon Lederman argued for “recycling” one of the Fermilab Tevatron detectors.
47. R. Crease, Science 250, 1648 (1990).
48. R. Schwitters, Decision Memorandum — on aspects of the initial scientific program for the SSC (Jan. 4, 1991).
49. D. P. Hamilton, Science 252, 908 (1991).
50. The history of the L* Collaboration is detailed in “Report to the L* Collaboration,” by Hans Hofer, Deputy Spokesman, and Samuel C. C. Ting, Spokesman, dated May 15, 1991. The perspective is one from the L* point of view but a number of relevant documents, discussed here, are included there.
51. Report of the Mar. 10-12, 1991, meeting of the SSCL PAC.
52. R. F. Schwitters, Report to the PAC (May 3, 1991).
53. Letter from R. F. Schwitters to the US HEP community, dated May 10, 1991.
54. D. P. Hamilton, Science 252, 1610 (1991).
55. Solenoidal Detector Collaboration Technical Design Report (SSCL-SR-1215, Apr. 1, 1992).
56. GEM Technical Design Report (SSCL-SR-1219, Apr. 30, 1993).
57. J. Mervis, D. Dickson and D. Swinbanks, Nature362, 385 (1993).
58. House vote cooled international ardor for GEM, Super Collider News (Oct. 1992), p. 3.
59. F. Gilman, presentation to HEPAP on the SSC Experimental Program on June 4, 1991.
60. Presentation by M. Gilchriese at the January 4-5, 1991, HEPAP meeting at the SSCL.
61. Proc. Symp. Detector Research and Development for the Superconducting Super Collider (Oct. 1518, 1990; Fort Worth, Texas, USA) (World Scientific), eds. T. Dombeck, V. Kelly and G. Yost.
62. Texas Test Rig Project, Presentation by G. Mitsel-makher at the Sept. 11, 1992, HEPAP meeting.
63. High energy physics research and the Superconducting Super Collider: DOE policies and practices (DOE/ER, Aug. 1992), distributed at the Sept. 1112, 1992, HEPAP meeting.
64. For a summary of the SSC’s technical status in Aug. 1992, see: R. F. Schwitters, Proc. XXVI Int. Conf. High Energy Physics (Aug. 6-12, 1992; Dallas, Texas, USA), ed. J. Sanford, pp. 306-320.
65. Superconducting Super Collider: A Retrospective Summary 1989-1993 (Apr. 1994), eds. G. F. Dugan and J. R. Sanford.
66. ‘Tail wagging dog’ overrun picture drawn by IG, Super Collider News (Aug. 1992), p. 3.
67. URA, PB/MK contractors severely criticized, Super Collider News (May 1992), p. 3.
68. Tunneling records broken, SSC News (June 1993), p. 4.
69. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 45, 54 (1992).
70. SSC magnet (RFP SSC-90-A-01701).
71. Magnets: GD, Westinghouse beat out Grumman, Super Collider News (Nov. 1990), p. 1.
72. SSCL news release (July 19, 1991).
73. SSCL news release (July 31, 1991).
74. Russians to supply LEB accelerator magnets, Super Collider News (Mar. 1992), p. 1.
75. R. Meinke et al., Chap. 8. of Ref. 65.
76. Letter from C. Rubbia to F. Low, dated May 18, 1989.
77. F. Flam, Science 256, 466 (1992).
78. Letter from C. Rubbia to F. Low, dated July 31, 1989.
79. For example: R. F. Schwitters, Foreign travel report: Soviet Union and Germany (Nov. 1990).
80. C. Rubbia and R. Schwitters, Memorandum of Understanding between CERN as Scientific Institution and the SSC Laboratory, signed April 8, 1991.
81. Memorandum of Understanding between TRIUMF and the SSC Laboratory, signed by Erich Vogt and Roy Schwitters, August 22, 1991.
82. D. Swinbank, Nature 344, 8 (1990).
83. R. Schwitters, Conclusions from visit of H. Sugawara to SSCL. Memo to file, Dec. 12, 1990.
84. D. Hamilton, Science 255, 279 (1992).
85. D. A. Bromley, The President’s Scientists: Rem iniscences of a White House Adviser (Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 211-214.
86. J. Mervis, Science 265, 1357 (1994). I am grateful to M. Riordan for bringing Bromley’s memoirs to my attention.
87. US/Japan SSC working group being formed, Super Collider News (Feb. 1992), p. 1.
88. Japan’s interest is strong but path is not clear, Super Collider News (May 1992), p. 1.
89. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 44, 52 (1991).
90. M. Crawford, Science 246, 557 (1989).
91. M. Crawford, Science 252, 25 (1991).
92. G. Taubes, Science 259, 756 (1993).
93. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 42, 49 (1989).
94. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 44, 53 (1991).
95. Potentially dire consequences of this action for the SSC were emphasized by Rep. George Brown, chair of the House Committee on Space, Science and Technology: Phys. Today 45, 45 (1992).
96. Report of the 1992 HEPAP Subpanel on the US Program of High Energy Physics Research (Apr. 1992, DOE/ER - 0542P).
97. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 45, 54 (1992).
98. Prepared statement of Sheila Widnall for the April 7, 1987, hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
99. Testimony of Daniel Kleppner at the April 7, 1987, hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
100. C. Norman, Science 255, 672 (1992).
101. Status of DOE’s Superconducting Super Collider (GAO Report, Apr. 1991, GAO/RCED-91-116).
102. Letter from Secretary Watkins to Jamie Whitten, dated May 8, 1991.
103. Yes, big science. But which projects? The New York Times (May 20, 1988).
104. F. Dyson, Phys. Today 41, 77 (1988).
105. A. M. Sessler, Phys. Today 41, 26 (1988).
106. The New York Times editorial (Mar. 21, 1990).
107. The New York Times editorial titled “Europe 3, U.S. not even zero” (June 8, 1983).
108. It should be emphasized that the leadership of the HEP, in its formal statements and reports, did maintain a united front regarding the proposed new facilities. See for example the joint statement by the Directors John Peoples (Fermilab) and Roy Schwitters (SSCL) dated May 29, 1990.
109. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 46, 43 (1993).
110. A. Reifenberg, Clinton may trim ’94 collider funding, The Dallas Morning News (Feb. 4, 1993).
111. The DOE summary of the early cost history is discussed in “Report on the Superconducting Super Collider cost and schedule baseline” (DOE/ER-0468P); for a detailed breakdown of the costs at different stages of the project see: T. Elioff, A Chronicle of costs (SSCL-SR-1242, Apr. 1994).
112. Nuclear science: information on DOE accelerators should be better disclosed in the budget (GAO/RCED-86-79, Apr. 9, 1986).
113. BOO claimed that the appropriate figure should have been US$6.243 billion, the difference being due to the DOE’s failure to apply proper escalation to the R&D component of the project and to take into account the extra cost in management expenses due to the stretch-out (minutes of the BOO Executive Committee meeting, Nov. 21, 1989).
114. Memorandum of Understanding between the DOE and the TNRLC, signed on Nov. 9, 1990, by Henson Moore and Morton Meyerson, Chairman of the TNRLC.
115. The out year guidance given to the DOE for Federal Budget Authority for FY94-FY98 was US$640 million, US$551 million, US$570 million, US$591 million and US$812 million (Robert Diebold’s presentation at the Apr. 7, 1993, HEPAP meeting). It is not clear whether the project could converge at that rate (see quote in Ref. 117).
116. H. R. O’Leary, United States Department of Energy budget highlights (DOE/CR-0014, Apr. 1993).
117. T. Elioff, in Ref. 110.
118. In his testimony at the Dingell Committee hearing on June 30,1993, Victor Rezendez of the GAO stated: “The project could not be completed at a US$550 million federal funding level because overhead costs and reductions in buying power would consume most of the available funds after fiscal year 2000.”
119. Report of the Task Force on SSC Commissioning and Operations (SSC-SR-1005, Apr. 1985).
120. Reference 94 and SSCL-SR-1216; Garry Gibbs, in his testimony on May 9, 1991, to the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, quoted an estimate of the annual operating cost of US$380 million in FY92 dollars.
121. J. Krumhansl, letter to Secretary John S. Harrington, dated February 19, 1987; quoted in I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 40, 50 (1987).
122. M. Crawford, Science 245, 25 (1989).
123. D. H. Hamilton, Science 249, 731 (1990).
124. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 44, 52 (1991).
125. D. Hamilton, Science 256, 1752 (1992).
126. For example, 40 prominent physicists signed strong pro-SSC letters sent on July 15 to both President Bush and Senator Johnston; subsequently 2032 other scientists added their signatures — I. Goodwin, Phys. Today (Aug. 1992) 59.
127. A. McKenzie, President to rally support for collider with Thursday visit, Dallas Morning News (July 28, 1992); during his visit to the Waxahachie site Bush described the SSC in rather glowing terms: “And when you talk basic research, this is the Louvre, the Pyramids, Niagara Falls all rolled into one,” quoted in: I. Goodwin, Phys. Today (1992), 55.
128. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 45, 53 (1992).
129. C. Anderson, Science 260, 1421 (1993).
130. S. LaFraniere, Energy dept official urges firing super collider chief, The Washington Post (Aug. 2, 1993).
131. M. Browne, Scientist at work: Roy F. Schwitters; building a behemoth against great odds, The New York Times (Mar. 23, 1993, C11).
132. C. Anderson, Science 288, 288 (1993).
133. Hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, held on June 30, 1993.
134. T. Beardsley and R. Ruthen, Scientific American(Sept. 1993), pp. 20-24.
135. C. Frampton, “Audit questions supercollider costs as project faces crucial House vote, The Wall Street Journal (23 June, 1993).
136. C. MacIlwain, Nature 364, 92 (1993).
137. V. Kiernan, New Scientist (July 10, 1993), p. 5.
138. Letter from Sen. David Pryor, member of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, to John Layton, Inspector General of the US Department of Energy, dated August 3, 1993.
139. Report of the DOE Review Committee on the baseline validation of the Superconducting Super Collider (Sept. 1, 1993).
140. DOE press release: Secretary O’Leary announces plan for containing costs of Superconducting Super Collider (Sep. 1, 1993).
141. For example Roy F. Schwitters [150]; memo from W. K. H. Panofsky to SSC staff dated Juky 27, 1993 and R. Schwitters’ All hands talk on July 21, 1993; “Some comments on the SSC costs and the GAO report,” SSC publication (Mar. 11, 1993); “Comments on the draft Inspector General report on SSC Laboratory subcontractor expenditures (SSC press release, June 23, 1993).
142. Letter from James Decker, Acting Director of Office of Energy Research, to S. Wojcicki, HEPAP chair, dated Sept. 20, 1993.
143. DOE press release: DOE to strengthen super collider management (Aug. 4, 1993).
144. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 46, 52 (Sept. 1993).
145. One such anti-SSC coalition was Organizations Opposing the Super Collider (OOPS), aiming to stop SSC construction. Some of the participating organizations were the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Friends of the Earth, National Taxpayers Union, and Citizens for a Sound Economy.
146. Letter from President Clinton to William Natcher, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations (June 16, 1993).
147. E. Littlejohn, Foes try to kill supercollider funds, Portland Oregonian (June 9, 1993).
148. J. Mervis and K. Fox, Science 261, 288 (1993).
149. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 46, 43 (1993).
150. R. Schwitters’ testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Senate Committee on Apropriations, (Aug. 4, 1993).
151. C. Krauss, Knocked out by the freshmen, The New York Times (Oct. 26, 1993).
152. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 46, 77 (1993).
153. I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 47, 87 (1994).
154. M. Browne, The Supercollider’s demise disrupts many lives and rattles a profession, The New York Times (Nov. 14, 1993).
155. F. Flam, Science 262, 644 (1993).
156. Report on the closure of the Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory (URA document, Sept. 30, 1995).
157. Report of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel’s Subpanel on Vision for the Future of High Energy Physics (May 1994, DOE-ER-0614P).
158. The CERN Council approved the LHC in a “1/3 missing magnets” configuration on Dec. 16, 1994 (CERN Courier, Jan./Feb. 1995, p. 1). The US participation was approved by Congress in 1995.
159. D. Dickson, Science 224, 1216 (1984).
160. D. Ritson, Nature 366, 607 (1993).
161. W. K. H. Panofsky, Phys. Today 47, 13 (1994).
162. M. Riordan, Phys. Perspective 2, 411 (2000).
163. See for example Nature 365, 771 (1993).
164. M. Waldrop, Science 235, 965 (1987).
165. E. Marshall, Science 246, 1110 (1989).
166. M. Waldrop, Science 250, 364 (1990).
167. J. D. Watkins, letter to George E. Brown dated January 14, 1993.
168. Sid Drell argued for full internationalization of the SSC, both for construction funding and for management, just before the SSC was killed. This would be in the spirit of my model (2): S. Drell, Phys. Today 46, 73 (1993).
169. This difficulty was pointed out by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Panel on Megaprojects, chaired by Harold Shapiro and John McTague (Dec. 1992). One of its findings was: “The United States has a history of failing to meet certain commitments to international partners for particular megaprojects that have long time horizons.” A broad range of negative repercussions from a potential SSC cancelation was eloquently described by Will Happer at the time of his departure from OER — quoted in: I. Goodwin, Phys. Today 46, 90 (1993).
170. Such a “basket” approach, advocated by Burt Richter, was discussed at the 5th EPS International Conference on Large Facilities in Physics (Lausanne, Switzerland, Sept. 12-14, 1994), eds. M. Jacob and H. Schopper (World Scientific), pp. 457-461.