Export your learner materials as an interactive game, a webpage, or FAQ style cheatsheet.
Unsaved Work Found!
It looks like you have unsaved work from a previous session. Would you like to restore it?
Total Categories: 7
The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), colloquially known as the Desertron, was a particle accelerator complex planned for construction near Waxahachie, Texas.
Answer: True
The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), also known by the nickname Desertron, was indeed a particle accelerator complex planned for construction near Waxahachie, Texas. Its development commenced in 1991.
The initial recommendation to build the Superconducting Super Collider came from a 1984 National Reference Designs Study.
Answer: False
While a 1984 study assessed designs, the primary recommendation for the U.S. to build the SSC originated from a 1983 subpanel of the High-Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP).
The Central Design Group (CDG) for the SSC was organized at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California.
Answer: True
The Central Design Group (CDG), responsible for the design efforts of the SSC, was indeed organized at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California.
The 1983 HEPAP subpanel recommended that the United States focus on building smaller, more numerous experiments instead of the SSC.
Answer: False
The 1983 HEPAP subpanel, led by Stanley Wojcicki, recommended that the United States build the Superconducting Super Collider as its forefront high-energy physics program.
The Superconducting Super Collider was commonly nicknamed "Desertron."
Answer: True
The Superconducting Super Collider project was indeed widely known by the nickname "Desertron."
The image described as 'A high-level schematic of the lab landscape during the final planning phases' depicts the tunnel layout.
Answer: False
The image described as 'A high-level schematic of the lab landscape during the final planning phases' depicts the overall lab landscape, not specifically the tunnel layout.
What was the primary purpose of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)?
Answer: To be the world's largest and most energetic particle accelerator.
The fundamental purpose of the Superconducting Super Collider was to construct and operate the world's most powerful and energetic particle accelerator for fundamental physics research.
Which US state was chosen as the location for the Superconducting Super Collider?
Answer: Texas
The site selected for the construction of the Superconducting Super Collider was near Waxahachie, Texas.
The Central Design Group (CDG) for the SSC was established at which institution?
Answer: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
The Central Design Group (CDG), responsible for the technical design of the SSC, was organized at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California.
What was the role of the 1983 HEPAP subpanel led by Stanley Wojcicki?
Answer: To recommend a forefront U.S. High-Energy Physics Program and specifically recommended building the SSC.
The 1983 HEPAP subpanel, chaired by Stanley Wojcicki, was tasked with defining the future direction of U.S. high-energy physics and its primary recommendation was the construction of the SSC.
The SSC was designed with a ring circumference of approximately 54.1 miles.
Answer: True
The planned ring circumference for the Superconducting Super Collider was indeed 87.1 kilometers, which equates to approximately 54.1 miles.
At the time of cancellation, the SSC project had completed approximately 14 miles of tunnel excavation.
Answer: True
By the time of its cancellation, approximately 22.5 kilometers (about 14 miles) of tunnel excavation had been completed for the SSC project.
The SSC was planned to have a collision energy roughly three times higher than the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
Answer: True
The SSC was designed for a collision energy of 40 TeV (2 x 20 TeV), which was approximately three times the energy of the LHC's design energy.
The SSC was planned as a synchrotron accelerator designed for electron beams.
Answer: False
The SSC was planned as a synchrotron accelerator, but it was designed for proton beams, not electron beams.
The SSC's planned luminosity was significantly higher than that of the LHC, compensating for its lower energy.
Answer: False
The SSC's planned luminosity was significantly *lower* than the LHC's design luminosity; the SSC's advantage was its planned higher collision energy.
The SSC was planned as a synchrotron accelerator designed for proton beams.
Answer: True
The SSC was designed as a synchrotron accelerator intended to accelerate proton beams.
The Superconducting Super Collider was planned to have a maximum energy of 20 TeV per proton.
Answer: True
The SSC was designed to achieve a maximum energy of 20 TeV per proton, resulting in a total collision energy of 40 TeV.
The planned maximum luminosity for the Superconducting Super Collider was 1 x 10^33/(cm^2*s).
Answer: True
The planned maximum luminosity for the SSC was indeed specified as 1 x 10^33/(cm^2*s).
The Superconducting Super Collider was planned to be a collider.
Answer: True
The Superconducting Super Collider was designed to function as a collider, specifically accelerating and colliding proton beams.
How did the SSC's planned collision energy compare to that of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)?
Answer: The SSC's energy was planned to be approximately three times higher than the LHC's.
The SSC was designed for a collision energy of 40 TeV, approximately three times higher than the LHC's design energy of 13.6 TeV.
How did the SSC's planned luminosity compare to the LHC's design luminosity?
Answer: The SSC's planned luminosity was only one-tenth of the LHC's.
The SSC's planned maximum luminosity was 1 x 10^33/(cm^2*s), which was one-tenth of the LHC's design luminosity.
What was the planned circumference of the SSC in miles?
Answer: 54.1 miles
The planned ring circumference for the Superconducting Super Collider was 87.1 kilometers, which is equivalent to 54.1 miles.
In 1987, Congress was informed that the SSC project could be completed for an estimated cost of $12 billion.
Answer: False
In 1987, Congress was informed of an estimated cost of $4.4 billion for the SSC project. The $12 billion figure represents later, escalated cost projections.
Utilizing existing infrastructure at Fermilab in Illinois might have reduced the SSC's overall cost by up to $3.28 billion.
Answer: True
Estimates suggest that leveraging the existing physical and human infrastructure at Fermilab in Illinois could have potentially decreased the SSC's total project cost by as much as $3.28 billion.
The SSC project successfully attracted substantial international financial support from European nations and Japan.
Answer: False
The SSC project encountered significant difficulties in securing substantial international financial contributions from European nations, Japan, and other potential partners.
Trade tensions, particularly concerning the automobile industry, hindered funding talks with Japan for the SSC.
Answer: True
Funding discussions with Japan were indeed impeded by existing trade tensions, notably related to the automobile industry, in addition to other diplomatic issues.
A February 1993 report indicated the SSC was significantly under budget, with costs well below projections.
Answer: False
A February 1993 report from the General Accounting Office indicated the SSC was significantly over budget, not under, with substantial cost overruns compared to projections.
Approximately $400 million of the $2 billion spent on the SSC before its cancellation came from the host state of Texas.
Answer: True
Prior to its cancellation, approximately $2 billion had been expended on the SSC, with a significant portion, around $400 million, contributed by the host state of Texas.
The magnets were the least expensive component of the SSC project, with their costs well-defined early on.
Answer: False
The magnets were identified as the primary cost driver and a major expense due to their development phase, leading to significant cost uncertainty, not well-defined early costs.
The estimated cost of $4.4 billion for the SSC in 1987 was considered significantly lower than NASA's contribution to the International Space Station.
Answer: False
The estimated cost of $4.4 billion for the SSC was often contrasted with, and considered comparable to, NASA's contribution to the International Space Station, raising questions about affordability.
Audit reports for the SSC highlighted questionable expenses such as $12,000 for Christmas parties and $25,000 for catered lunches.
Answer: True
Audit reports did indeed identify questionable expenses, including funds allocated for holiday parties and catered lunches, contributing to concerns about financial oversight.
By March 1993, the New York Times reported the estimated total cost of the SSC had decreased to $4 billion.
Answer: False
Contrary to decreasing, the New York Times reported in March 1993 that the estimated total cost of the SSC had escalated significantly, reaching $8.4 billion.
The tunneling and conventional facility construction budget for the SSC represented about half of the total projected cost.
Answer: False
The budget for tunneling and conventional facilities was approximately ten percent of the total projected cost, not half.
A US-Japanese trade mission intended for SSC funding discussions was overshadowed by a diplomatic incident involving President George H. W. Bush.
Answer: True
A trade mission focused on SSC funding discussions with Japan was notably overshadowed by a public incident involving President George H. W. Bush.
Before its cancellation, approximately $2 billion had been spent on the SSC, with $400 million coming from the Department of Energy.
Answer: False
Approximately $2 billion was spent before cancellation, but the majority of this funding, not $400 million, came from the Department of Energy, with Texas contributing $400 million.
The primary reason for the SSC's magnets being a major cost item was their simple, standardized design.
Answer: False
The magnets were a major cost item because they were still in the laboratory development phase, leading to cost uncertainty, not because of a simple, standardized design.
What was the approximate amount spent on the SSC project before its cancellation in 1993?
Answer: 2 billion dollars
By the time the Superconducting Super Collider project was canceled in 1993, approximately $2 billion had already been expended.
What was the estimated total cost of the SSC reported by the New York Times in March 1993?
Answer: 8.4 billion dollars
By March 1993, the New York Times reported that the estimated total cost for the Superconducting Super Collider project had risen to $8.4 billion.
What issue hindered international funding talks with Japan for the SSC, besides general trade tensions?
Answer: A notable incident involving President George H. W. Bush during a trade mission.
Beyond general trade issues, a specific diplomatic incident involving President George H. W. Bush during a trade mission overshadowed discussions regarding Japanese funding for the SSC.
Which of the following was identified as the primary cost driver for the SSC project?
Answer: The development and production of superconducting magnets.
The development and manufacturing of the superconducting magnets were identified as the most significant cost driver for the SSC project.
What was the estimated cost of the SSC project when Speaker Jim Wright garnered support for it in 1987?
Answer: 4.4 billion dollars
In 1987, when Speaker Jim Wright was instrumental in garnering Congressional support, the estimated cost for the SSC project was presented as $4.4 billion.
What was the primary reason cited for the SSC's magnets being a major cost item?
Answer: They were still in the laboratory development phase, leading to cost uncertainty.
The superconducting magnets represented a significant cost driver because they were still in the developmental stage, introducing considerable uncertainty regarding their final production costs.
Which of the following was a factor that deterred potential international partners from financially supporting the SSC?
Answer: The project was promoted as a symbol of American superiority.
The framing of the SSC as a symbol of American dominance may have deterred potential international partners who might have preferred a more collaborative or globally shared endeavor.
What was the approximate amount spent on the SSC project by the host state of Texas?
Answer: 400 million dollars
The host state of Texas contributed approximately $400 million towards the SSC project before its cancellation.
What was the main reason cited for the SSC's magnets being a significant cost driver?
Answer: They were still in the laboratory development phase.
The magnets were a major cost driver primarily because they were still in the laboratory development phase, introducing significant uncertainty and complexity into their cost estimation and production.
What did the General Accounting Office (GAO) report in February 1993 regarding the SSC's construction budget?
Answer: It was $630 million over the $1.25 billion construction budget.
In February 1993, the GAO reported that the SSC's construction budget was $630 million over its allocated $1.25 billion, indicating significant cost overruns.
What was the approximate total cost of the SSC project estimated by the New York Times in March 1993?
Answer: 8.4 billion dollars
In March 1993, the New York Times reported an escalated estimated total cost for the SSC project, projecting it to be $8.4 billion.
Critics argued that the funds allocated to the SSC could be better used for other scientific fields or smaller experiments.
Answer: True
A significant argument from critics was that the substantial funds earmarked for the SSC could be more effectively allocated to a broader range of scientific endeavors or smaller, more numerous experiments.
Opposition from within the scientific community, particularly from condensed matter physicists, supported the SSC's construction.
Answer: False
Opposition from segments of the scientific community, notably condensed matter physicists, actively argued against the SSC's construction, citing cost and resource allocation concerns.
Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg believed the SSC cancellation was an isolated incident within a robust scientific funding environment.
Answer: False
Steven Weinberg viewed the SSC cancellation not as an isolated event but as part of a broader crisis in scientific funding and societal priorities.
Condensed matter physicists argued that the SSC was essential for technological and economic benefits, despite its high cost.
Answer: False
Condensed matter physicists were among the critics who argued *against* the SSC, contending that other fields offered greater potential for technological and economic benefits relative to their cost.
What was a major reason cited by critics for opposing the SSC project?
Answer: The belief that the funds could be better allocated to other scientific fields or smaller experiments.
A primary criticism was that the substantial financial resources dedicated to the SSC could yield greater scientific or societal benefit if invested in alternative research areas or numerous smaller projects.
Which of the following was a criticism leveled by condensed matter physicists against the SSC project?
Answer: The SSC would divert funding from crucial research in condensed matter physics.
Critics from condensed matter physics argued that the SSC's immense cost would siphon resources away from other vital scientific fields, including their own, which they believed offered more immediate technological and economic benefits.
Which of the following fields did critics argue were underfunded compared to high-energy physics, despite their potential benefits?
Answer: Condensed matter and materials science
Critics argued that fields such as condensed matter and materials science were relatively underfunded compared to high-energy physics, despite their significant potential for technological and economic advancements.
Construction of the SSC was completed successfully, and it commenced operations in 1994.
Answer: False
The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project was canceled by the U.S. Congress in 1993 before its completion and never commenced operations.
In 1992, both the House and Senate voted against funding the SSC, leading to its immediate cancellation.
Answer: False
In 1992, the House voted against funding, but the Senate supported it, allowing the project to continue. The final cancellation occurred later.
In June 1993, President Clinton urged Congress to continue funding the SSC, emphasizing its importance for US scientific leadership.
Answer: True
President Clinton did advocate for continued funding in June 1993, framing it as essential for maintaining the United States' leadership in fundamental scientific research.
President Clinton signed the bill canceling the SSC project on October 19, 1993.
Answer: False
President Clinton signed the bill canceling the SSC project on October 30, 1993, not October 19.
The SSC was canceled primarily due to a lack of technological feasibility for building the necessary magnets.
Answer: False
The cancellation was primarily attributed to escalating costs, political opposition, and a diminished geopolitical imperative, not a fundamental lack of technological feasibility for the magnets.
In the 1992 congressional vote, both the House and the Senate strongly supported the SSC funding.
Answer: False
In the 1992 congressional vote, the House of Representatives opposed SSC funding, while the Senate supported it, leading to continued debate and eventual cancellation.
A public relations campaign in early 1993 aimed to lobby Congress against the Superconducting Super Collider project.
Answer: False
A public relations campaign in early 1993 was organized to lobby Congress *in favor* of the Superconducting Super Collider project, not against it.
The end of the Cold War strengthened the political justification for the SSC by increasing the need to demonstrate US scientific dominance.
Answer: False
The end of the Cold War diminished the geopolitical imperative for demonstrating U.S. scientific supremacy, thereby weakening one of the key justifications for the expensive SSC project.
Texas Governor Ann Richards strongly advocated for the SSC project throughout its development.
Answer: False
Reports suggest that Texas Governor Ann Richards expressed reluctance regarding the SSC project, and her lack of strong advocacy was noted as a factor in its eventual cancellation.
The 1993 audit by the Department of Energy's Inspector General found the SSC to be well-managed but over budget.
Answer: False
The 1993 audit by the DOE's Inspector General criticized the SSC for both high costs and poor management, not for being well-managed.
President Clinton supported continuing the SSC project to signal a compromise in US scientific leadership.
Answer: False
President Clinton supported continuing the SSC project to signal a commitment to *maintaining* US leadership in basic science, not a compromise.
Which of the following was NOT a primary factor cited for the cancellation of the SSC?
Answer: A significant breakthrough in fusion energy technology making the SSC redundant.
While escalating costs, management concerns, and the end of the Cold War were cited factors, a breakthrough in fusion energy technology was not a reason for the SSC's cancellation.
President Bill Clinton's stance on the SSC in June 1993 was:
Answer: He urged Congress to continue funding it, citing US scientific leadership.
In June 1993, President Clinton advocated for the continuation of the SSC project, emphasizing its importance for maintaining U.S. leadership in fundamental science.
What did the draft audit by the Department of Energy's Inspector General criticize about the SSC project in June 1993?
Answer: Its inadequate documentation and poor management.
The draft audit by the DOE's Inspector General heavily criticized the SSC project for inadequate documentation and perceived poor management practices.
What was the stated reason for President Clinton's support for the SSC in June 1993?
Answer: To demonstrate US leadership in basic science.
President Clinton's stated rationale for supporting the SSC was to affirm and maintain the United States' position of leadership in the field of fundamental scientific research.
The cancellation of the SSC had positive economic effects on the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, stimulating local industry.
Answer: False
The cancellation of the SSC had adverse economic consequences for the southern Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, contributing to a mild recession in affected areas.
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) benefited from utilizing existing infrastructure previously used by the Large Electron-Positron Collider.
Answer: True
The LHC at CERN was constructed utilizing existing infrastructure, including a large cavern previously used by the Large Electron-Positron Collider, which contrasted with the SSC's need for entirely new civil engineering.
The Large Hadron Collider became operational in August 2008 and has an annual operating budget of approximately $5 billion.
Answer: False
The LHC became operational in August 2008, but its annual operating budget for CERN is approximately $1 billion, not $5 billion.
Roy Schwitters speculated that the SSC would have discovered the Higgs boson approximately ten years after its actual discovery at CERN.
Answer: False
Roy Schwitters speculated that the SSC, had it been completed, would have discovered the Higgs boson approximately ten years *before* its actual discovery at CERN.
After its cancellation, the main site of the SSC was sold in 2006 to a chemical company for manufacturing.
Answer: False
The SSC site was sold in 2006 to an investment group, and later, in 2012, it was purchased by Magnablend, a chemical company, for manufacturing purposes.
The "See also" section in the article lists related particle accelerators and projects to provide context.
Answer: True
The 'See also' section serves to provide contextual information by listing related particle accelerators and scientific projects.
The LHC has a larger circumference than the planned circumference of the SSC.
Answer: False
The planned circumference of the SSC (87.1 km) was significantly larger than the circumference of the LHC (27 km).
The LHC's cost was significantly higher than the SSC's due to the need for entirely new infrastructure.
Answer: False
The LHC's construction cost was significantly lower than the SSC's projected cost, partly because it utilized existing infrastructure at CERN, unlike the SSC which required extensive new civil engineering.
The Large Hadron Collider became operational in August 2008 with a total construction cost equivalent to about $1 billion.
Answer: False
The LHC became operational in August 2008, but its construction cost was approximately $5 billion, not $1 billion.
The former SSC site is currently used for manufacturing oil field products after renovations by Magnablend.
Answer: True
Following its sale and renovation by Magnablend, the former SSC site is now utilized for the manufacturing of oil field products.
The "See also" section lists related particle accelerators and projects to provide context.
Answer: True
The 'See also' section is designed to offer readers additional context by listing related particle accelerators and scientific projects.
What happened to the main site of the SSC after its cancellation?
Answer: It was sold to an investment group and later repurposed by a chemical company.
Following cancellation, the SSC site was deeded to Ellis County, then sold to an investment group, and subsequently acquired by Magnablend, a chemical company, for industrial use.
According to Roy Schwitters' speculation in 2021, what discovery might the SSC have enabled approximately ten years earlier than it occurred?
Answer: The discovery of the Higgs boson particle.
Roy Schwitters speculated that the SSC, had it been completed, would likely have led to the discovery of the Higgs boson approximately ten years prior to its actual detection at CERN.
What was the approximate circumference of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)?
Answer: 27 kilometers
The Large Hadron Collider has a circumference of approximately 27 kilometers (about 17 miles).
What immediate economic consequence did the SSC cancellation have on the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex?
Answer: A mild recession, particularly in the southern areas.
The cancellation of the SSC led to adverse economic effects in the southern Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, contributing to a mild recession in that region.
What did Roy Schwitters speculate would have happened if the SSC had been completed?
Answer: It would have discovered the Higgs boson about ten years earlier than it was.
Roy Schwitters speculated that the completed SSC could have led to the discovery of the Higgs boson approximately a decade before its actual discovery at CERN.
How did the SSC's planned circumference compare to the LHC's circumference?
Answer: The SSC was planned to be significantly larger than the LHC.
The planned circumference of the SSC (87.1 km) was substantially larger than that of the LHC (27 km).
Leon Lederman was the primary physicist responsible for the cancellation of the SSC project.
Answer: False
Leon Lederman was a prominent physicist and a strong advocate for the SSC project, not responsible for its cancellation. He is known for his book 'The God Particle'.
Leon Lederman's 1993 book, "The God Particle," aimed to decrease public interest in the SSC's scientific goals.
Answer: False
Leon Lederman's book, 'The God Particle,' was published in 1993 and aimed to increase public understanding and support for the scientific goals of the SSC.
Roy Schwitters served as the laboratory director for the Superconducting Super Collider project.
Answer: True
Roy Schwitters held the position of laboratory director for the Superconducting Super Collider project.
Louis Ianniello was the final project director for the SSC before its cancellation.
Answer: False
Louis Ianniello was the *first* project director for the SSC. The project had several directors before its cancellation.
Leon Lederman was a physicist at Fermilab and a major proponent of the SSC project.
Answer: True
Leon Lederman, associated with Fermilab, was indeed a significant proponent and advocate for the Superconducting Super Collider project.
Louis Ianniello served as the first project director for the SSC.
Answer: True
Louis Ianniello, an administrator from the Department of Energy, was appointed as the initial project director for the Superconducting Super Collider.
Leon Lederman's book popularized the term 'God particle' for the Higgs boson.
Answer: True
Leon Lederman's 1993 book, 'The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?', is credited with popularizing the term 'God particle' for the Higgs boson.
Who was a prominent physicist and strong advocate for the SSC, also known for his 1993 book "The God Particle"?
Answer: Leon Lederman
Leon Lederman, a Nobel laureate and former director of Fermilab, was a principal advocate for the SSC and authored the influential book 'The God Particle'.
What was the role of Speaker Jim Wright concerning the SSC project?
Answer: He was a strong supporter from Texas who helped garner Congressional support.
Speaker Jim Wright, representing Texas, was a key political figure who actively supported the SSC project and helped secure Congressional backing for it.