Old Stuff
LHC Restart - Still a Flawed Plan?
Yesterday, the management of the LHC project at CERN announced plans for a restart of the damaged facility later this year. The Geneva press release reads in part:The new schedule foresees first beams in the LHC at the end of September this year, with collisions following in late October. A short technical stop has also been foreseen over the Christmas period. The LHC will then run through to autumn next year, ensuring that the experiments have adequate data to carry out their first new physics analyses and have results to announce in 2010. The new schedule also permits the possible collisions of lead ions in 2010.
In Chamonix there was consensus among all the technical specialists that the new schedule is tight but realistic.
“The schedule we have now is without a doubt the best for the LHC and for the physicists waiting for data,” said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer. “It is cautious, ensuring that all the necessary work is done on the LHC before we start up, yet it allows physics research to begin this year.”
But is the schedule they have now the best for the health of the LHC? We raise this question as it was nearly 20 months ago that we wrote this after the previous magnet faux-pas at CERN:
As we wrote a few months ago (yes, the science column has been getting short shift), the catastrophic failure of the 'inner triplets' in a vacuum test in March would likely delay the startup schedule of the LHC. With a press release this past week, CERN has both denied and confirmed our assessment by keeping the originally planned full startup date of May, 2008 but canceling the initial low-energy test run.
“The low-energy run at the end of this year was extremely tight due to a number of small delays, but the inner triplet problem now makes it impossible,” said LHC Project Leader Lyn Evans. “We’ll be starting up for physics in May 2008, as always foreseen, and will commission the machine to full energy in one go.”
This seems to us a foolish course of action which only serves to make management look 'effective' by keeping to the original full startup date. However, by tossing out the low-energy warm up run CERN risks finding out about more problems the hard way. Prudence suggests that with a machine this complex and costly, caution should be the order of the day and an abbreviated test run should be scheduled to kick the tires before driving the new Porsche off the dealer's lot.
In fact, the ultimate start date was delayed another four months but our fears were well founded as the near full energy runs last fall resulted in significant damage to the collider and at least a one year delay in real physics being done.
Now, we will readily admit to only one brief course ('foray') in beam physics so we don't portend to be even remotely as knowledgeable as those involved in day to day operation of the LHC. However, common sense tells us that this is an extremely complex machine - both in terms of the number of disparate parts as well as its function - and that it is far better to burn two or three months time doing low energy runs than to just flip the switch on full and cross ones fingers, again. Delays due to mechanical failure are incredibly costly, not just because of money spent on repairs but also from the downtime of hundreds, if not thousands, of physicists and technicians. CERN will have wasted over a year because of the events of last September and another similar delay would be devastating coming at a time of budget constraints due to the ongoing world wide economic recession. Well, we'll cross our fingers for you, but perhaps a good old fashioned spirit cleansing is in order:
Are You Stimulated Yet?
We left the below comment on another blog in response to a post on the stimulation our government plans for us:Well if they count everything we will be approaching a 4, yes FOUR, trillion dollar federal budget. The first $1T budget was in 1987. $2T came in 2002. $3T came in, your choice 2006,07,08 as much of the war spending was not 'on budget'. Tack on $900 B and we are at $4T. Note that 30 years ago, in 1979 the budget was about $500B.
This year federal spending will be close to 28% of GDP. The prior, non-WWII peak was 23.5% in 1983. And to put these in perspective, in 1930, Federal spending was 3.4% of GDP, in 1950 15.6%. Is the problem really that the government is now spending too little?
There are two problems at the moment. Unsustainable spending on entitlements and the prevailing need "to do something". We all know about the first. The second though is left in the dustbowl of history - FDR (and Hoover before him). Contrary to popular belief, the massive post 1929 crash / depression time spending did little to change the picture. They were also suffering from the 'we have to do something' problem. While there was an initial rebound in the economy in 1934-36, things tanked again in 37 and 38 with unemployment going back to 1934 levels. Spending however increased 6% in 1930, 8% in 31, 20% in 32, 42% in 34 and 28% in 1936. There is no clear link between the massive increases in spending and resultant changes in gdp and employment.
[UPDATE 2/4/09:From the wires this morning, the Treasury Dept. said it will need to borrow $493 billion during the current January-March quarter, a record amount for this period, following actual borrowing of $569 billion in the October-December period, the all-time record.]
A bit rough and dirty, but the basic points are there. Very large spending programs by the government in dire economic times have historically not had the effect their proponents claim they would have. At best the New Deal spending is a mixed bag and some might argue the 1937 tank was in part a result of knock on effects from the massive stimuli. The current economy has already seen a huge stimulus - a few hundred billion directly to taxpayers under Bush and about $500B in aid to the financial industry. Interest rates are near 0, though that may apply more to the return investors are getting rather than the rate borrowers pay, assuming they are able to secure the financing they desire. We have long maintained that the ZIR policy followed by Japan in the 1990s through today has hurt and prolonged their economic slowdown and we feel the same will be true of the Fed version. We also believe that the end effects of the government running the printing presses at full speed will be inflation (not deflation) and eventually new bubbles. Are there any doctors in high places in our government? Primum non nocere!
We do not, however, summarily dismiss all government spending nor all the new spending proposed by the new Administration. Our highways require significant maintenance as do our many state controlled roadways and bridges. If well monitored, spending in this area will be worthwhile, but is not likely to provide any short term stimulation to the economy. Increased funding to our national labs, in particular to the physical sciences and technologies, will ultimately pay significant dividends both to the economy and our knowledge... just down the road a bit. But these are things which should be addressed in normal, continuing resolutions and not emergency spending bills. These are investments, not stimulus.
Our current spending is unsustainable. At some point our creditors will pull the plug and/or our currency will devalue significantly. The government is on track to become an ever larger percentage of the economy and we all know that the government does very little well. The entitlement bogey man must be addressed, the sooner the better. However, if our politicians feel they absolutely must, must do something now! we recommend significant tax credits for the formation of new (not realigned) businesses. Giving people an incentive to start a business and hire employees is a far better way to go.
Iran Becomes More Complicated
Word comes this morning that Iran claims to have successfully launched its first orbiting satellite, Omid ("Hope") on its Safir ("Ambassador") launcher. The Safir was most recently tested last August and is believed to be a derivative of the Shahab-3 a booster, a descendant of the Korean Nodong-1 missile. While Western intelligence agencies have confirmed the launch, they have said little more about the Omid payload. Iranian President Ahmadinejad said after the launch that the satellite had made contact with Iranian ground control but that its other communication systems had not yet been activated. So some doubt remains over the status of Omid but that is hardly the salient point. That Iran claims to have delivered a satellite into orbit is the big news. [Update: From Armscontrolwonk.com "NASA has posted the first orbital elements of the satellite and its third stage rocket body and, running the orbits backwards, they are totally consistent with a launch from the “Kavoshgar” launch site at 18:38 on 2 February 2009 (GMT)."]As has long been the case with Iran, a potential destabilizing military development is again couched in terms of peaceful scientific and technological advancement. Certainly a space launch capability is an impressive technological achievement and allows Iran to have its own communications infrastructure without dependence on western companies (and their governments). The successful enrichment and processing of natural uranium into fuel for a nuclear reactor(s) is another advance which frees Iran from the normal sourcing of low-enriched reactor fuels. However, both technologies can be used militarily, alone or in combination. There lies the problem for the US and other governments. Is the development of an indigenous space program a legitimate right of any country? Or, because of dual-use, will new technological developments initially seen in the US and Europe be deemed unacceptable for second and third world countries such as Iran, thus fully stepping on the slippery slope where just about anything can find a significant military use alone or in combination? To what lengths should the US (and others) go to stop the development and use of such technologies? Is turning Iran into rubble OK while we accept programs from nuclear capable states such as Brazil and Japan? Were there some form of legitimate peace between Iran and Israel would we no longer fear what Iran intends or could do with these technologies?
There is no immediate national threat from Safir as a ballistic missile launcher for an Iranian nuclear bomb - there are still many hurdles (not least of which is the making of a bomb small enough to be carried by Safir) such as guidance and re-entry which Iran must cross. But for too long the West has stuck its collective head in the sand, repeatedly saying no, no, no to the use of technologies they themselves take for granted. A better approach would be to develop a real and substantial diplomatic framework now to deal with these issues in the general sense so that we do not do this song and dance every time an unfriendly country develops a dual-use technology. To think that nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles will be the most complex developments the West must confront is folly - these are fifty plus year old instruments of power. Science and technology do not stand still and what is a coveted national military secret one day will be readily obtainable to others in the future. There is no lock on knowledge and once obtained, there is no going back.
