posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by buddhasystem
I guess you are right, it was a long time ago that I read it. They only spent about half the money but almost tripled the cost of the original
estimate. The fact remains that the initial estimated cost went from 4.4 to 12 billion for new projected costs. Would it have been approved if it
was known it was going to cost 12 billion? I hate deceit. We have too many things like this happening in this country, that's why we are so far in
debt. It became common practice to lowball quotes by not including necessary things. They can be tacked on as changes after getting the bid. I
understand this well, I am a contractor who chose not to play that game.
This is from Wikki:
"During the design and the first construction stage, a heated debate ensued about the high cost of the project. In 1987, Congress was told the
project could be completed for $4.4 billion, and it gained the enthusiastic support of Speaker Jim Wright of nearby Fort Worth.[dubious –
discuss] By 1993, the cost projection exceeded $12 billion. A recurring argument was the contrast with NASA's contribution to the International Space
Station (ISS), a similar dollar amount. Critics[who?] of the project argued that the US could not afford both of them. Early in 1993 a group
supported by funds from project contractors organized a public relations campaign to lobby Congress directly, but in June, the non-profit Project on
Government Oversight released a draft audit report by the Department of Energy's Inspector General heavily criticizing the Super Collider for its
high costs and poor management by officials in charge of it.
A high-level schematic of the lab landscape during the final planning phases.
Congress officially canceled the project October 21, 1993 after $2 billion had been spent."