How to get funding for big science projects?

- Manned Mars mission (~50 000 000 000 US dollars)
- VLHC particle collider (billions of US dollars?)
- Project Cyclops: ~1500 radio telescopes with diameter of 100 meters each (billions of US dollars?)
- SETI@home (500 000 US dollars a year)

Is there any way to develop new funding models so that science would get more money?

Henri.

---

Manned mission to Mars in 2019 Petition <-- Sign this, please.

- Cut other programs
- Increase taxes
- Somehow brainwash people into donating more money

How to get funding for big science projects?

- Manned Mars mission (~50 000 000 000 US dollars)
- VLHC particle collider (billions of US dollars?)
- Project Cyclops: ~1500 radio telescopes with diameter of 100 meters each (billions of US dollars?)
- SETI@home (500 000 US dollars a year)

Is there any way to develop new funding models so that science would get more money?

Henri.

Having given this some thought Henri.......

- Manned Mars mission (~50 000 000 000 US dollars)
So that's 50 billion US dollars

I believe the budget for the LHC in Geneva is about 30 billion Euro. I was told its a similar budget to your average large hospital in any big city.

So, what do people spend Hugh amounts of money on??????

War in Iraq; Cost; I believe its about 10 trillion USD to date. I could be out by a few trillion but who's counting :)
That's; 10,000,000,000,000 USD

We must keep in mind that is just what the US government are spending on one of their war's. There are many more very powerful nations around the world.

So it seems to me that the best way to get governments around the world to spend Hugh amounts of money on science is if the benefits are related to War.

We need a good war in space to really get the ball rolling!...LOL

John.

---

We need a good war in space to really get the ball rolling!...

I heard Europa has water... and oil... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

thank god people don´t know where or what europe is
( and btw Antarctic's has ice and the penguins are really bad at war, since they don´t have guns, only beak)

Well, we also have wine and beer, but no oil, except olive oil. We have the Sun and wind, but we don't exploit them like we could. Italy is the worst in this case, Germany and Denmark are top. France likes nuclear power, also good to make weapons for the "force de frappe". I am not including Great Britain cause I don't understand if they belong to Europe nor not.
Tullio

---

Well, we also have wine and beer, but no oil, except olive oil. We have the Sun and wind, but we don't exploit them like we could. Italy is the worst in this case, Germany and Denmark are top. France likes nuclear power, also good to make weapons for the "force de frappe". I am not including Great Britain cause I don't understand if they belong to Europe nor not.
Tullio

I am not including Great Britain cause I don´t understand if they belong to Europe nor not.

LOL...that´s very good! Maybe it helps if you include Gibraltar, that´s an anchor well stuck into the continental soil of Europe, so the British Isles will not drift away into the Atlantic Ocean and get lost!!!!
Cheers! Ciao!Saluti.

---

norway has oil, oh, i was not suppose to tell

I was not thinking of geography. What about the Falkland Islands, deep in South Atlantic Ocean?. But the British don't use the euro as currency, still cling to the Imperial system of units, and have a "special relationship" with their former colonies, the USA. Not to mention the Irish, which recently voted down the draft of an European Constitution. My doubts are founded.
Tullio

---

norway has oil, oh, i was not suppose to tell

You are right, but it is outside the euro (and Schengen) zone.
Tullio

---

yes but in scandinavia we see us as scandinavia even norway is not a member
of eu, happens to be cause of oil.

How to get funding for big science projects?

- Manned Mars mission (~50 000 000 000 US dollars)
- VLHC particle collider (billions of US dollars?)
- Project Cyclops: ~1500 radio telescopes with diameter of 100 meters each (billions of US dollars?)
- SETI@home (500 000 US dollars a year)

Is there any way to develop new funding models so that science would get more money?

Henri.

Returning to the main topic/idea/question: How to get funding for big science projects?
*What about increasing and improving High School/University?
Big projects are only possible if there´s a big well studied plan behind, so it demands qualified people.
*Let´s forget frontiers and border lines: you cannot see such things when you scan the sky with radiotelescopes, or when you have a look down the Earth from the ISS. Progress and success is only possible with international cooperation.

---

Sometimes big science projects, with their billion dollar or billion euro budgets, mark the end of smaller projects. I think the ALMA radiotelescope array in the Atacama desert in Chile, funded by an international cooperation, is the main reason for the lack of support of Arecibo by the National Science Foundation. Mors tua vita mea.
Tullio

---

War in Iraq; Cost; I believe its about 10 trillion USD to date. I could be out by a few trillion but who's counting :)
That's; 10,000,000,000,000 USD

John.

I don't think the Iraq war has cost that much yet. It might not yet even be a trillion. Lately we've been turning our heads more toward Afghanistan where there has been more terror lately.

---

yes but the question is, is it worth of it?

war cost

this is peaceful project for good of human kind

PROJECT ALMA

As you may have imagined I am not a fan of Big Science. I am running Einstein@home in the hope of detecting a gravitational wave, while NASA has refused to spend a few thousand bucks to complete the analysis of the Gravity Probe B satellite data aiming to prove the frame dragging effect after having proven the geodetic effect, all foreseen by a theory which dates back to 1915.
What we need is not a new radiotelescope or a new particle accelerator but a new Einstein, able to lead us in the pursuit of scientific advances. But that is not given to us to produce.
Tullio

---

As you may have imagined I am not a fan of Big Science. I am running Einstein@home in the hope of detecting a gravitational wave, while NASA has refused to spend a few thousand bucks to complete the analysis of the Gravity Probe B satellite data aiming to prove the frame dragging effect after having proven the geodetic effect, all foreseen by a theory which dates back to 1915.
What we need is not a new radiotelescope or a new particle accelerator but a new Einstein, able to lead us in the pursuit of scientific advances. But that is not given to us to produce.
Tullio

I agree. We also need another someone like Carl Sagan to popularize it. I think that is where the problem is, the subject isn't being talked about enough in the mainstream media. Carl Sagan might not have been the most brilliant scientist out there but he had the knack of putting science in terms that the everyday person could understand.

---

Jim

Some people plan their life out and look back at the wealth they've had.
Others live life day by day and look back at the wealth of experiences and enjoyment they've had.

I agree. We also need another someone like Carl Sagan to popularize it. I think that is where the problem is, the subject isn't being talked about enough in the mainstream media. Carl Sagan might not have been the most brilliant scientist out there but he had the knack of putting science in terms that the everyday person could understand.

I agree too. I have translated "Cosmos" into Italian for Mondadori Publishing House in a time where there were no PCs. only typewriters, and if you needed to correct your translation, as it always happens, you had to retype it. But I am glad I did it.
Tullio

---

it demands qualified people.

Start passing out more 'pieces of paper'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .