IMO an even more remarkable feat in planetary science in 2005 than the Huygens landing was Hyabusa’s collection of asteroid material from the S-type asteroid Itokawa:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467676.stm

I think we have a chance of connecting particle physics to the Big Bang, although at the moment our ideas are still very speculative. But just the fact that we can intelligently debate different answers to the question “Why does spacetime appear four-dimensional?” is a remarkable feat.

You might also want to ask about the prospects for different experimental inputs in the near future — from particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, from searches for dark matter and dark energy, from gravitational wave observatories, etc. The next 10-20 years hold remarkable promise for surprising new discoveries that will reveal important parts of the big picture, and it would be interesting to see what Lisa thinks those prospects are.

Lots of good questions to ask — from “what first got you interested in physics”" and “why did you decide to write a book?” to “how do you think we will experimentally test the idea of extra dimensions?” and “how close are we to connecting particle physics to the Big Bang?” There is widespread interest in these big questions about cosmology and extra dimensions and particle physics and quantum gravity, the real goal should just be to bring them to life and convey some of the excitement that physicists themselves are feeling.

Your show sounds like a lot of fun; good luck with the interview.

I wonder how much money an SSC telethon would have raised. 1%? 10%? 30%?

On a personal note - I was supported by an SSC Fellowship when the project was cancelled. I remember watching the congressional vote on CSPAN on that fateful day in October 1993. I went in to work that afternoon, spent most of the time crying in the ladies locker-room, and at the end of the day, called SLAC to accept my current position. I probably would have come to SLAC no matter what happened to the SSC, but I was fortunate to have a nice alternative career path to turn to on that day.

Ben L: You are absolutely correct. It took all I had to not include that comment in my bottom line and to end the post on an upbeat note.

Perhaps we might be somewhat sparing in the use of word “exciting” to describe what is actually a rather routine year of physics.

I think you have a point there: “routine physics” is exciting! I found the list quite impressive.

About 1905, I think we can come up with another, stronger adjetive for it.

http://www.hep.net/ssc/

Would it have become operational by now?