07/19/2011 at 2:30 pm

its stupid to waste materials on earth. space probes on suicide missions arnt recoverable and therefore cant be recycled for further use.

07/19/2011 at 3:02 pm

This is a great feature but in what world was the International Space Station constructed for 4.5 billion dollars?

Was that the cost for the first node only? I believe the original cost estimates for the ISS construction were around 25 billion and that it ended up ballooning over 100 billion (some sources saying up to 130 billion). Even if only the American contribution were counted, and no launch vehicle costs were counted (which should be since they were costs in the construction of the ISS, not just keeping it operational) it's very difficult to find the measurement by which the ISS cost 4.5 billion to build.

Stripping out everything that could be considered "operational costs" seems like an inaccurate way to convey the cost of the ISS. Though other science projects in this feature don't really have that problem.

4.5 billion is practically what has already been spent on James Webb Telescope, which might now be canceled.

07/19/2011 at 8:45 pm

@JeffreyE the 100 billion you are talking about probably includes annual budget as well. 20 years times 2 billion is 40 billion. so that's part of it. We dont know how that 100 billion came to be, for all we know that could included everything from the original space shuttle development costs (which was used to bring the main modules) to the astronauts training. not sure. but you have a point.

lets hope they dont cancel James Webb. I think its just one idiot blowing smoke who knows nothing. There is a politician in Florida who wants to ban motorcycles. Just because some politician says something people think it might actually happen. But I cancelling James webb is as stupid and ridiculous as banning motorcycles.

@extremechiton dont be so closed minded. Some thing can only be learned certain ways. you can send a probe half way into Jupiters atmosphere. you would never get it back, even if you could fire boosters, the gravity is ten times earth, the atmospheric drag and pressure are 100 times higher This is not the first suicide probe. it about the 100th. Do a little more research. check out Mercury many were sent there for example in the 70s by the the USA and the Russians.
what about voyager probes. its never coming back. by definition its a suicide probe so is 99% of EVERYTHING we send to space.

07/19/2011 at 10:20 pm

It is fun to see these projects presented, but, as other commenters have noted, some of the information is questionable.

@JeffreyE Yeah, when it costs about $1 billion on average to launch the space shuttle, it's kind of hard to see how the construction cost of ISS could be only $4.5 billion. The original Space Station Alpha that the Reagan Administration proposed was projected to be $8 billion, and NASA actually spent $10 billion doing nothing more than printing paper studies of SSA. NASA doesn't count the cost of the Shuttle program in its estimate of the total construction cost of ISS, but even it prices the construction of ISS at $54 to 59 billion. (historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-space-station-pg2.htm)

I have to question whether this expense of constructing ISS was worth it?

Article #3: Spallation Neutron Source seems odd to me. I would have expected a listing in watt-hours. Telling me that the facility uses 28 MW of power every month doesn't tell me how much energy this facility uses. This is about the amount of power that a mid-sized cruise ship might use to propel itself at slow speed. I suspect that the facility does this for only short periods of time, though.

Protons and electrons are small, too, but they interact strongly with most ordinary matter because they possess and electric charge. Neutrons don't have an electric charge (hence the "neutral" in the name "neutron"). My understanding that it is because neutrons don't have an electric charge that they don't interact as strongly as protons and electrons do. Even so, neutrons are dense particles and can make materials radioactive and even kill people. Perhaps the author is thinking of neutrinos?

07/20/2011 at 2:34 am

This list is indeed a bit strange. Clearly the Large Hadron Collider should be at number 1. It is the Single Largest, Single most Complex, and Single most Costly Science experiment humanity has ever build (iss is not a science experiment, it`s a space station on which you can perform experiments).

And the LHC could well reveal the corner stones of our entire Universe as we know it. From Dark Matter and Energy to Gravity itself and EVEN the existence of other Dimensions.

And what about the Hubble Space Telescope. The most influential space telescope ever build. It is not on the list either. If it has to be big to make the list what about LOFAR. Talk about large and incredible. The Neptune project and Earthscope are not so impressive at all since their just tiny instruments on a large area. If that`s a requirement then a Project like LOFAR should clearly be on the list. It uses at least 20,000 antenna stations + 48 Large ground stations, compared to only 4000 small gps/geosensors for Earthscope.

07/20/2011 at 10:30 am

Also with regard to "What's in it for us"
ISS: Among many other cool projects the first work on metalic foams was done on ISS. Metal foams are one of the best energy absorption/dampening materials for both acoustics and collisions in most cases.
large hadron collider: If you enjoy any of the concepts in science fiction that involve space or time travel, material replication from energy, or any other near fantasy technology that is dependent on relativity. Whether or not they will ever be possible will be greatly understood by the results of the work being done at the LHC and the Heavy Ion Collider.

07/20/2011 at 11:39 am

TJSon, I agree. Sure, the LHC won't produce any immediate, physical rewards, but it is laying the groundwork and understanding for exotic new inventions and projects. Specifically space travel and energy production.

And sure, a nationwide array of geological sensors is cool, but I feel like a an army of high schoolers with smart phones could accomplish it. The LHC should be #1.

07/20/2011 at 2:51 pm

As interesting as these developments seem, they are still nothing on a universal scale. The rough equivalent of someone walking up to us today on the street, striking a match, and saying "Look! I made fire!".

I applaud the advances we have made, but comparing anything we do in the context of the universe is going to come up seriously short everytime.

Until we can generate something that can exert the gravity of 6.6 billion suns (see link below), we have no right making such comparisons.


07/20/2011 at 11:22 pm

I applaud Popular Science's selection of EarthScope as the most epic of the big science projects. Those unfamiliar and dismissive of it (e.g., the flippant comment about kids with smartphones) really should check out www.EarthScope.org.

Its scientists are measuring earthquakes, and magma movement, and the fine structure of North America's crust and underlying mantle, and the motions of plates—all with direct relevance to hazards, resources, and sustainability. Even more exciting, the EarthScope instruments are yielding important environmental data that were not initially anticipated, such as the depth of snowpack and vegetation changes in sparsely populated regions not well studied before.

EarthScope also invests a great deal of its expertise and resources in public education and outreach programs, especially in concert with heavily visited venues like National Parks.

EarthScope is a fine response to those who ask why we spend some of our taxes on big science rather than social needs (even though all science gets a pittance in comparison to defense and entitlements). From a societal perspective, EarthScope is the most directly relevant and potentially useful program on PopSci's list. You want to talk epic? Recall the Tohoku quake and tsunami—and envision the exact same events along our Pacific coast (or even the Gulf or Atlantic coasts, triggered by a Caribbean quake). Nice to know that EarthScope science is helping us better understand and prepare for such eventualities.

(Back to high schoolers: if the majority of high schools in this nation were to finally abandon their 19th-Century curriculum model, and teach our kids a little bit of 21st-Century Earth system science along with the PCBs—physics, chemistry, and biology—all of the above would be self-evident.)

07/21/2011 at 12:26 pm

if the biggest scientific project on the planet is a general study of how different parts of the U.S. are moving in relation to each other ... well, I'll give that a 10 on the "Wow" scale! Someone's been inhaling some PCBs.

07/21/2011 at 12:40 pm

Before looking out at the stars, I'd prefer to know as much as I can about what I'm standing on, yes.

07/24/2011 at 5:26 pm

What I don't understand is why they put it on treads. They're destroying the underwater environment they are studying with tread tracks (and I realize that such marks would be erased but I'm referring to plants, creatures, and features that get run over)! I was looking at videos on Youtube from Wally's camera and the one moment of film that struck me was when the camera pointed downward at some spider crabs between it's treads. It can't be possible to avoid all the plants and creatures on the ocean floor... So why treads? It's like taking a jeep into a canyon to 'explore it'.

Log in or register to post comments