Considering the failure of particle physics to make substantive gains, even with the massive expenditures made, I cam think of a number of far more enticing uses of the funds and lunar real estate.
The LHC cost around 4.75 bn (initial estimate) to construct. Let's be generous and add quite some buffer, to a solid 6bn.
The project has been in operation since 2010. Lets assume operational cost of 1bn a year, that brings up the total tally to 20bn. Let's add 10% just to be safe, so 22bn.
The US military expenditure is THIRTY-EIGHT-POINT-SIX (38.6) times that number. PER YEAR! Remind me again, what "substantive gains" were had, by pumping 850bn dollars into one countries military per year? Bear in mind that, despite all that, (the US essentially LOST the last larger war they were involved in)[0].
US military being a touchy subject? No problem, how about agriculture? The EU agricultural subsidies (CAP) pump over 60bn into farming each year. As for the results of all that money being spent, (weeell... )[1]
What about fossil fuels? Worldwide subsidies in these were (just shy of 130bn dollars )[2] (again, that's PER YEAR), and these things are destroying our habitat as we speak.
So please, explain to me how paying less than 25bn, over a 10 year period, to gain the ability to figure out how reality works, is a "massive expenditures", compared to other things society throws money at left right and center.
[0]: https://time.com/6090758/why-america-lost-afghanistan/
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/european-union-farm-subsidie...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies#Subsidie...
Isn’t this evidence of nukes being necessary?
Someone else’s nukes being insufficient. The last few years have shown nuclear powers are inviolable, to the point of causing allies of non-nuclear powers being violated by them drawing red lines in the violator’s defence.
You never quantified the LHC’s benefit. I could use your logic to justify spending billions on anything, whether confirming the existence of the Higgs or trying to find evidence of Biblical angels or whatever.
But again, I can use this to justify anything. Why this basic science?
No, you cannot. To use your above example, I very much doubt that anyone has a workable plan to prove the existence of biblical angels that they could formulate in enough reason and technical detail to begin construction on a multi-billion-dollar project.
People did, and do, have such plans for figuring out the reactions of elementary particles.
There is a difference between "science" and "anything".
> Why this basic science?
Because elementary particle physics pretty much explain how the basic building blocks of the universe, and the forces governing them, work, and thus provide the most essential framework to understand the natural world next to mathematics?
I'd say that's pretty important, and if we spend less than 30bn on that over a 10 year period, I'd call that a bargain, certainly compared to all the other crap society wastes money on.
As long as we have the dough to give trillions in handouts to billionaires so they can buy more yachts, private jets and islands, I'd say we can spare tuppence for the science that furthers our species understanding of the universe.
Correct, because it takes about 2 seconds to google it. [Here you go](0)
[0]: https://cerncourier.com/a/a-decade-in-lhc-publications/
With that said building colliders does have scope to reveal new physics and a project like this would almost certainly have a bunch of high-value spinoff technology outcomes.
It’s plausible we’ll get a very good thing for a fairly bad reason.