Slashdot Mirror


Broadband To Hit The South Pole

Albanach writes: "According to this story from the BBC bids are being invited to lay a fibre-optic cable some 1600 kilometres over polar ice, linking researchers at the South Pole with the rest of the planet. Currently, researcher's communications rely upon older satellites that have drifted from their geostationary orbits into ones that are now at least partly visible from the pole. The new cable will be laid on top of the 4km ice cap, and will have to cope with repeated freezing and stretching as the ice moves."

286 comments

  1. finally by tps12 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess this means we can expect to hear from Tux more often.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:finally by smcn · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm waiting until it gets to the North Pole so Santa will actually recieve my emails.

    2. Re:finally by ozbird · · Score: 2

      Apparently due to global warming, Santa drowned a few years back - just don't tell the kids...

  2. Challenge by spencerogden · · Score: 5, Funny

    This seems like an awefully expensive, challenging way to fix this problem. Are they going to need repeters to stretch fiber that distance?

    1. Re:Challenge by TheKubrix · · Score: 1

      I agree, this seems almost like a waste. Were there NO other solutions? Imagine all the manpower its going to take to install that, much less the support it will need afterwards. Who the hell is behind the wheel on this one? Monty Brewster? It reminds me when he financially supported the removal of an iceburg so that some area could get extra water......

    2. Re:Challenge by linzeal · · Score: 1
      Depends on how you look at it, it could soon be home to millions of human beings in transition to mars. One of the only places on earth that is as arid, cold, and barren.

      I'm assuming most of us geeks could live pereptually inside now, we should start pestering the mars society to get on this.

    3. Re:Challenge by gorilla · · Score: 2

      yes. Fiber distance depends on the speed, if you have a slow signal it's easier to detect the 0&1's even if they've been spread by distance, but for typical speeds, you can expect to need a repeater about every 2km for multi-mode, and every 10km for single-mode.

    4. Re:Challenge by mac123 · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are currently shipping ZX interfaces that can go to 70KM to 100KM or so.

      http://networking.smsu.edu/general/info/CiscoGBI C. htm

    5. Re:Challenge by Dthoma · · Score: 2
      "OK, our team of scientists in Antarctica has been requesting some broadband Internet access for sometime now. We can't ignore them any more, so what should we do?"

      1. Use long lengths of cable to hook 'em up
      2. Shoot up new satellites into space
      3. Shoot up little satellites to move the big ones back in place
      4. Use ESP
      5. Er...
      6. ...that's it.

      Golly, which of those options do you think they'd pick?

      --

      Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

    6. Re:Challenge by digerata · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Compared to their internet access bill, mine is nothing. I am now happy to pay my 40 dollars a month. Thank you BBC!

      --

      1;
    7. Re:Challenge by unicron · · Score: 2

      Yeah, they obviously chose the stupidest option possible. Can you imagine if the cable broke? That has to be one of the few tech support calls where there's a good chance you aren't coming back.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    8. Re:Challenge by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lucent's new optical equipment can push a signal 2000-4000 KM without need for regeneration. Distance depends on speed. It is all DWDM OC-192 multiplex, so the "slow" speed is still ungodly fast.

      Yes, this is a shipping product.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    9. Re:Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm...Terrestrial Micro-wave relays?

      You know, point-to-point line of sight? Seems a lot less costly to me...and if the snow is a problem, just use millimeter band. Whatever.

    10. Re:Challenge by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      yes. Fiber distance depends on the speed, if you have a slow signal it's easier to detect the 0&1's even if they've been spread by distance, but for typical speeds, you can expect to need a repeater about every 2km for multi-mode, and every 10km for single-mode.


      Even fiber installs done 5 years ago were done with repeaters spread over much further distances than that (like 45-70km) at high speeds.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    11. Re:Challenge by barawn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I think you misunderstood the satellite issue: they're not using satellites for themselves - they're using satellites that other people put up, and have drifted from their geosynchronous orbits - which is over the equator, and not visible from the pole - into an orbit which is "mostly" geosynchronous, but visible from the pole.

      This leads to spotty, poor internet connections (because it's not really geosynchronous, they do move, and they have to be not visible to the pole for some of their orbits) so they need another solution. More satellites would just produce the same current situation, and you definitely don't need to move the old ones back into place - they're working fine currently, but they're just 'spotty', and more importantly, the people who run those satellites probably WANT them in geosync orbit, so they do want to move them back. Fiber's a permanent and cheap solution to this.

    12. Re:Challenge by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

      What's wrong with using the new Quantum Tranceiver Gigabit Ethernet NICs?

      Instant signal transfer with no loss over infinite distances. Sounds like a plan to me.

      Oh wait... they wont be available till what? 2040 or something?

      Maybe in the meantime we could use long lines of penguins to shuttle the packets.

      I can dream can't I?

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
    13. Re:Challenge by the_pilot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even tough you don't need regeneration before 2000-4000 km if you are using Lucent optical DWDM system or Nortel's LH4000 DWDM system you still need an optical amplifier at each 100~130km. How will you bring power to does OAS (optical amplifier site) they generally need 60 AMP of power.

      One way it to use underwater transoceanic amplifier systems (Alcatel, Tycom)

    14. Re:Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is expensive, but the data and communications links are presently via satellite, which are in polar orbit, meaning that they are not always available. Having a highspeed connection to a site that is with in line of sight of a geo satellite means getting continuous connectivity via satellite via the relay at Dome C (International collaboration site).

      You may also like to know that the South Pole already has several linux based products. There may not be any penguins at the South Pole, but Tux is!!!

      If you want more on the sites in Antarctica, visit www.70south.com.

    15. Re:Challenge by Dthoma · · Score: 1
      Maybe in the meantime we could use long lines of penguins to shuttle the packets.

      What if they're running Windows?

      --

      Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

    16. Re:Challenge by SETY · · Score: 1

      This thing will have Brutual PMD because of the freezing and thawing. They will most likely need an electrical regen somewhere or use slow speeds.

    17. Re:Challenge by chill · · Score: 1

      My mistake.

      The Lucent LambdaXtreme until pushes a 1.25 Tb signal 4000 Km through a series of 100 Km fiber runs.

      Raman regeneration via a counter-propagating pump, along with Lucent "true wave", zero-dispersion, EDFA fiber is used at each span.

      HOWEVER, the pump laser unit can be, and frequently is, very small. They don't need 60 AMPs and, if done using distributed amplfication, they're tiny. Size of your little finger tiny.

      Check out this link for an example, though I thing Lucent still uses Agere to manufacture the parts.

      That's a long way from 60 AMPs of power.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    18. Re:Challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucent's new optical equipment can push a signal 2000-4000 KM without need for regeneration.

      True, but if it gets too cold it suffers QUAD DAMAGE.

  3. Conspiracies? I think so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insert obligatory Linux-Penguin-Broadband conspiracy theory here.

  4. Interesting by The+Turd+Report · · Score: 1

    They can bring broadband to the South Pole, but they can't bring it to Podunk, Iowa?

    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are probably more people at the South Pole.

      I just hope they bring them lots of hard drives to save all of the porn they will be downloading. It must be lonely there.

    2. Re:Interesting by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The South Pole is populated by scientists studying climate change, astronomy and the like. Podunk Iowa is populated by literalists fundementalists who believe the earth is 6000 years old, deny evolution, and are awaiting the rapture. Who do you think needs the internet more?

    3. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There is no Podunk, Iowa.

      However, there ARE:

      Podunk, CT

      Podunk, MI

      Podunk, NY

      Podunk, VT

      I wonder if you can get broadband in any of those places.. ;-)

    4. Re:Interesting by jsfetzik · · Score: 1

      But Podunk, Iowa isn't offering to pay $250 million, or anything even close, to get broadband.

    5. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there you go confusing Iowa and Kansas again... oddly enough, not all states are the same, however shocking that idea may be.

    6. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If naturalistic science is their religion, evolution is their creed, the Internet is their idol-god, and wiring the planet is their Great Commission, then yes, the scientists need the Internet more.

    7. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could tell you where the South Pole is but no way I can tell you where Podunk, Iowa is. Hell, I only vaguely know where Iowa is. Does that answer your questions?

  5. Sweet! by vidnet · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Maybe I have a shot at getting broadband too now?

  6. Finally.. by dBLiSS · · Score: 1

    The Researchers will be able to download Mp3z at the south pole!

    --

    The Good Life
    1. Re:Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Researchers will be able to download Mp3z at the south pole!

      Actually, it turns out that having the researchers look at porn is the cheapest way to keep them warm out there.
  7. Bids, not kids ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a moment there, I thought it said "kids are being invited".

    I was thinking research grants must have really dried up ;)

  8. what about my house? by gmr2048 · · Score: 5, Funny

    and i cant get DSL cuz i'm 200' too far from the CO?

    1. Re:what about my house? by biohazard99 · · Score: 1

      200', tell the phone company not to worry about the service level and give you a port on the DSLAM, assuming there isn't some ungodly fiber to copper interconnect, load coil, or bridge tap for those 200'. You could sweet-talk your neighbor(s) in between you and the line into burying your own cat 5 or running 802.11 to a neighbor inside that boundary if there is an actual physical limitation between your tin can and the edge.

    2. Re:what about my house? by jareds · · Score: 1

      and i cant get DSL cuz i'm 200' too far from the CO?

      I'll bet you could get broadband for $250 million if you wanted.

    3. Re:what about my house? by SkewlD00d · · Score: 2

      'sounds like you live in San Jose, CA; because I can't get any broadband here either. screw pachell and their $1000/mnth crap. stupid city council here too, there's one cable company (AT&T) and one phone company (SBC PacBell). gee, sounds like innovation and competition to me. shit, and 20-30+GHz wireless line-of-sight is neglected and shelved *cough* Sprint, even though some of that shit works farther than some xDSLs do, but your ping and upload bandwidth will suck and it doesn't work so good with humidity/rain.

      rant keywords="broadband,wireless,optical,ad-hoc"
      WTF, why don't we all just establish ad-hoc wireless, optical band Line-Of-Sight (LOS) metro networks w/ lots of redundancy. Everyone gets somewhere between 5-10 up/download links and stick it into a packet router, sorta like packet modem relay/forwarding. Because we really need two types of QoS services, low ping/low bandwidth and high bandwidth/best-effor. At optical speeds, should be able to get 1-10Mbs, and WDM w/ spread-spectrum (frequency hopping) could be used to give it about 10-100Mbs at News 10 weather relay tower as an example, some kind of retro thing. There's a crazy-huge mast in Shanghai, it looks like a stick-and-ball molecule model but it's meant to be the literal interpretation of a poem. So, in Antarctica, dress up all the radar towers as Tuxs. =)

      --
      The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
  9. Distance by Pyrosz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you just imagine what your ping time would be while playing Quake? Sheeesh. At least my Athlon wouldnt need the super fan I have on it now, just stick it outside to run. Although I suspect it would melt a hole in the ice! ;)

    --

    An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
    1. Re:Distance by RobertNotBob · · Score: 3, Funny
      Imagine running into the group of researchers in a quake match.....

      Sure, their ping times are all 200, but they are clocking their CPU's to 17GHz and rendering at 64,000 x 32,000! On the bigger maps, they can snipe you from their spawn to yours.

      --
      ___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
    2. Re:Distance by akb · · Score: 2

      Actually it would be quite high if you have to leave the continent as the fiber connects to another base which is able to see a geosync satellite.

    3. Re:Distance by dgmartin98 · · Score: 1

      I can't these people playing games. They endure -40 or -60 'C temperatures, are funded for their stay by various governments, and probably pay an arm and a leg to get their equipment (e.g. PCs) shipped to them.

      Not to mention the fact that they probably don't want to use up fuel to power their computers while playing games. .Dave

      --
      FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
    4. Re:Distance by Pyrosz · · Score: 2

      I was joking :)

      But they do have downtime so who knows if they play games or not. On a side note, most of the equipment is shipped by the military and the power is generated all the time no matter what (it provides heat) so they could use it as they see fit.

      --

      An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
    5. Re:Distance by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Maybe that explains why that big ice-field broke off, it was tux playing TuxRacer on his Athlon.

    6. Re:Distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their ping times are all 200

      actually, all you need is a pair of latency cancellers on each end to get that down to 10ms and they'll have a nice fast link.

    7. Re:Distance by Deep+Penguin · · Score: 1

      The RTT from McMurdo Station (at the coast) to my ISP back home in Ohio is in the 1600ms range. It's similar at Pole, but at least at McMurdo, we get 24-hour-a-day satellite coverage (the cutoff is about 80S, and McMurdo is at 78S - they had to excavate the ground in front of the dish; it's tipped so far forward that there wasn't room at first. The dome and pedestal were designed for temperate latitudes).

  10. hmmm by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if the routers will freeze more often. But of course not! They will use Linux, and so will be perfectly at home!

  11. well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We now where the new largest collection of pr0n will be located.

  12. So by Raul654 · · Score: 1

    How long until we see hardcore antarctican porn sites?

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:So by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Sorry, hot stuff is not allowed there, since it could melt the ice.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:So by scott1853 · · Score: 1

      Just wait till you start getting porn spam for Hardcore Penguin Farm Sex.

  13. It would suck if it broke by mrmaster · · Score: 1

    Imagine being called out to fix a fiber optic break down there.

  14. Why bother? by First+Person · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't it be much easier to establish a permanent cable connection to one of the islands off of Antarctica where ice variations would not be an issue? Then you could establish a wireless relay (microwave or other) from their to the south pole stations.

    --
    Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
    1. Re:Why bother? by mikeplokta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, it turns out that the earth is a sphere. I know, who would have thought it? But given that, there's the slight practical problem of beaming the microwaves or other wireless connection through a thousand miles of solid rock.

    2. Re:Why bother? by quackPOT · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the ice shifts cause problems for the relays? With cable, it could shift, rise, sink, etc and not interfere with the cable so long as it didn't move so much as to snap the cable.

    3. Re:Why bother? by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      You could solve that problem by putting them on towers and using repeaters

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    4. Re:Why bother? by Theom · · Score: 0

      Powered by what???

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
    5. Re:Why bother? by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      microwaves

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    6. Re:Why bother? by topham · · Score: 2

      You want to be the one having to go out and de-ice the towers?

      The advantage of satellite is atleast the dish is close by and easy to maintain (comparably speaking), even when its -40f + Windchill.

  15. Weird by Mupp252 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Broadband? South Pole? Internet? Penguins? I know there's some sort of wry humor in there somewhere.

    1. Re:Weird by taniwha · · Score: 1

      umm .... there are no penguins at the South Pole (at the coast maybe ...)

    2. Re:Weird by darkwiz · · Score: 2

      Broadband? South Pole? Internet? Penguins? I know there's some sort of wry humor in there somewhere.

      This might bring new meaning to the ol' "Avian Carrier" joke...

    3. Re:Weird by Hilleh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if we really felt like it we could also probably make a joke out of "ice caps on their bandwith." But we're above those kind of horrible jokes, aren't we? BEOWULF CLUSTER!!!

    4. Re:Weird by ApheX · · Score: 1

      You are misinformed.

      There are a *lot* of Penguins in Antarctica

      Quote:

      "The signature species of Antarctica -- the mascot, if you will -- is the penguin. There are not one but no fewer than 17 species of penguins, of which only four breed on the Antarctic continent itself. These include the Adelie, the Emperor, the Chinstrap and the Gentoo penguins. Several other species are sometimes found within the Antarctic region, and penguins are found as far north as the Galapagos Islands, straddling the equator. But in general, the link in the public imagination between Antarctica and penguins is supported by the numbers -- there are millions of nesting pairs of Chinstrap penguins alone, and they are by far the most numerous creatures in the region."

      --

      -
      aphex
      I Steal Music!
    5. Re:Weird by taniwha · · Score: 1

      sure there are lots around the coast where the fish are - but none make it inland up to the Pole - this was my point. Antartica is a really big place - I suspect all the penguins at the pole are stuffed toys

  16. This sounds... by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 3, Funny

    cool :)

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    1. Re:This sounds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      No. No. That's the sound of your pink slip from the Comedian's Guild.

      You're fired.

  17. those researchers probably dont know that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    napster got shut down. they were hoping to steal MP3s as long as they dont link to my site its OK by me

  18. well, thats just lovely by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 3

    Well, wonderful... we can get broadband to the south pole, but tough luck if you live in Cow's Ass, Montana.

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
    1. Re:well, thats just lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But at least in Montana you can have lots of weapons. Pistols, machine guns, rocket launchers, missiles... All the good shit that the rest of the country can't have. To get a halfway decent rocket launcher for a good price, you gotta to go like Sudan.

    2. Re:well, thats just lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no government in Antartica, you can import whatever you can get your hands on.

  19. Destroy the natural enviornment by slashuzer · · Score: 0

    Come on, spend some money and get a sat link. Yeah, not so fast but you'll still get your kazaa pr0n fix.....

  20. I can hear it now -- by pyramid+termite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If they can get broadband to the South Pole, why the hell can't we get it where we live?"

    1. Re:I can hear it now -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of companies like this one

      http://www.singercast.com

    2. Re:I can hear it now -- by JJC · · Score: 2, Funny

      Poor old Rob, they'll probably have broadband on Mars before Holland, Michigan...

    3. Re:I can hear it now -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is their cable is going to cost a quarter of a billion dollars. For much less, I'm sure your local telco will install a T1 to your house.

    4. Re:I can hear it now -- by Faust7 · · Score: 1

      Just initiate some government-funded research at your location and you'll have broadband before you can say Ross Ice Shelf.

  21. Wow.. that's high by MarvinMouse · · Score: 2

    It's amazing how they are going to put

    "broadband cable 1600 km over polar ice"

    Or do you mean across polar ice...

    I think cable 1600 km over polar ice would be far more impressive though. :-P

    --
    ~ kjrose
    1. Re:Wow.. that's high by hugecrow · · Score: 1

      maybe they could do that in conjuction with the moon elevator

      --
      Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
    2. Re:Wow.. that's high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, you know what, they dinn't say above polar ice. just over polar ice. [must you be so niggling about modifiers....]
      oh, and for the rest wondering why they're not getting b-band in their hood vs. the so. pole. maybe if you were to prove how "essential" your research in nowheresville might be then you may have your telco reconsider their position. anyways, the telcos are not going to lose money on this proposition. they are going to make some silver from this venure.

    3. Re:Wow.. that's high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nigglers about niggling, makes me niggle. I'm glad they are going to connect the South Pole. Everyone on every continent should get the Internet, even if they don't have sunlight through part of the day, all year long.

  22. Hi-Ho! by alexhbs · · Score: 1

    To the south pole we go!
    What's next? Now they can build a Nuclear Fusion reactor down there and work from a safe distance!

    Will somebody save tux's family?

    --
    Live Fast, Die Young, and leave a flat patch of fur on the highway!!!
  23. Napster shut down? I never felt it by yerricde · · Score: 2

    those researchers probably dont know that napster got shut down.

    Napster is dead; long live WinMX, the successor to Napster for Windows and x86 Linux.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  24. somewhat disgusting by macrohead · · Score: 1

    you'd think that all of north america would be covered by broadband before the south pole...

  25. Obligatory by BlueFall · · Score: 0, Redundant

    1. Run a broadband connection to the South Pole.

    2. ????

    3. Profit!

    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, good sir, relieve you and the rest of Slashdot from the obligation of making 'Obligatory' comments from hence forth.

    2. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok. I know I've heard this joke in several places... but what's the original? I can't place it. Monty Python? Douglas Adams? Darkwing Duck?!? I can't remember!!!

      (For some reason, I recall little cartoon mice saying this...)

    3. Re:Obligatory by RadioTV · · Score: 1

      It is from South Park.

      Underpants Gnomes

      --
      I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
    4. Re:Obligatory by RadioTV · · Score: 1

      Turns out that page doesn't have the dialog in question.

      Try here.

      --
      I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
    5. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel so relieved now. :) I know the episode you're talking about. (i guess I knew it was "little cartoon *something*" with weird voices...

      that's been bugging me off and on for months!!!
      thanks!

  26. Drifting... by mattyohe · · Score: 1

    "older satellites that have drifted from their geostationary orbits" But.. wont these polar caps/etc drift themselves? Won't that be a problem?

    --
    - what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
    1. Re:Drifting... by zmalone · · Score: 1

      Er, Antarctica is a continent. Unless of course you are commenting on the continental plate its on shifting, which may take a little while.

    2. Re:Drifting... by mikeplokta · · Score: 1

      The north pole drifts quite a lot. The south pole is three miles of ice on top of solid rock, and drifts a lot less. It's drifting of the thousand miles of ice between the south pole and the other end of the cable that they have to worry about.

    3. Re:Drifting... by Conspir8or · · Score: 1

      Unlike the Arctic, there is an actual continent under the Antarctic ice cap. The planners seem optimistic that the ice will stay roughly in the same place, unlike ice shelves. What with honking great chunks breaking off of the shelves (or is that just the Arctic) at greater sizes than before lately, who knows if any of the cable on the shelves will last?

      Even the parts on ice over rock will probably be ravaged by shoggoths anyway. Stick with the island-based wireless recommended by a prev. poster or chuck a new satellite up and be done with it.

      Tekeli-li,
      Conspir8or

    4. Re:Drifting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm.. How does that affect their point?

      Which was - they are currently using satelites which they can just barely see, and they only reason they can see them at all is becuase they have drifted.

      Thats why they want to put the fiber in, so they dont have to rely on those sats anymore..

      The location the other end of the fiber is planned to be at apparently has excellent sat connectivity..

    5. Re:Drifting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would think that drifing of fiber cable on ice would be a litle easier to fix than you average satilite. I mean, it may be hard to fix, but imagine trying to put an orbiting body back into te right place.

  27. .aq top level domain by Insightfill · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally, we'll start getting more .aq sites out there!!

  28. Fat chance. by FreeLinux · · Score: 2

    I've yet to see a fibre optic cable of any kind that could survive any significant stretching. These guys are talking stretching on a glacial scale. There's just no way they will be able to overcome this.

    Now, as an earlier post mentioned, running the cable to a coastal area or an island beyond the serious ice and relaying the signal via wireless is a lot more feasible. Of course the reliability will still be an issue as storms of antarctic proportion will impede even the best radio/microwave/laser setups.

    In the end, I suspect that they will simply have to put up another satellite.

    1. Re:Fat chance. by mikeplokta · · Score: 1

      Putting up one other satellite isn't an option. It can't stay in range all the time. And launching satellites into polar orbits is difficult. It would probably need half a dozen expensive satellite launches to give continuous coverage to the pole.

    2. Re:Fat chance. by hugecrow · · Score: 1

      what would be the price of another satellite compared to this cable? anyone?

      --
      Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
    3. Re:Fat chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can't they lay it wish some slack for the "stretching"
      I see no problem with that.

    4. Re:Fat chance. by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      No matter ho much slack you put in all you can do is delay the breaking of the line; these glaciers move all the time, and usually not back and forth, but in one primary direction.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    5. Re:Fat chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      So you:

      A. Be sure to leaves MILES of slack, in great big loops.

      B. Run a braided steel line that is strong enough to handle the movement, and then attache the fiber every mle or so, but be sure to have 1.05 miles of fiber for every 1.0 mile of steel line, so all the tension is on the steel, not the fiber..

    6. Re:Fat chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No matter ho much slack you put in all you can
      >do is delay the breaking of the line; these
      >glaciers move all the time

      Uh, sure, but they're not moving real fast real far.

      We're talking about movement measured in meters per year, so if we can put enough slack in it to account for 500 years of glacial movement...

      At that point, other factors become more significant than the ice shift.

    7. Re:Fat chance. by darkwiz · · Score: 2

      Well, technically, you might be able to get away with one. Just have the orbit be really deep, and you can see the satellite constantly.

      A few factors come into play here.

      If they are at the axial pole (as opposed to the magnetic pole), any satellite which is far enough from the earth in an equatorial orbit should be continuously visible.

      Given a lack of data for the actual curvature of the earth near the pole, I couldn't really give you a good calculation of how deep such an orbit would have to be. It may be too deep to be practical.

    8. Re:Fat chance. by mpe · · Score: 2


      Now, as an earlier post mentioned, running the cable to a coastal area or an island beyond the serious ice and relaying the signal via wireless is a lot more feasible.

      The pole is in the middle of the landmass. Anywhere on the coast would not have line of sight to the pole. Bouncing a signal of the ionosphere isn't going to work too well here either. Aurora might look nice, but charged paticles slamming into the atmosphere does not a stable ionosphere make.

    9. Re:Fat chance. by mikeplokta · · Score: 3, Funny

      The calculation is easy if you assume the station at the south pole is exactly at the axial pole, the earth is a perfect sphere, and the station is on the surface of the sphere. It has to be infinitely deep. Those assumptions are all simplifications, but in fact they're all reasonably accurate.

    10. Re:Fat chance. by jsfetzik · · Score: 1

      Satellites are expensive. A decent communication satellite will cost you $200-500 million to put in orbit. For the arctic you would need 2or more satellites for good coverage. So it could easily cost over $1 billion to get what you need.

    11. Re:Fat chance. by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      That would work if you could get the slack where you need it, when you need it, but you can't.

      That didn't sound to good... I'll try to explain...
      The ice will freeze onto the cable, and when this happens on two different glaciers, and they move relative to each other, all the slack in the world doesn't mean squat unless it is in between the two frozen points...

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  29. Since 99% of internet traffic is porn. by SpanishInquisition · · Score: 1

    I guess the Antartica is going to get a hell lot hotter.

    --
    Je t'aime Stéphanie
    1. Re:Since 99% of internet traffic is porn. by iabervon · · Score: 2

      "The station's winter personnel are isolated between mid-February and late October."

      If anyone deserves to get high-speed access to porn...

  30. Why not wireless? by photon317 · · Score: 5, Insightful


    It would seem Antartica provides one of the most hostile environments imaginable for wires, especially fragile fiber. Someone may come up with a very novel cabling system that might work, but despite all efforts chances are it will break down in the first year of use because of some onforseen engineering complications.

    So... why not go wireless? They seem to only consider satellites as wireless options, but why no ground-based wireless?

    Surely for this amount of money one could devices a wireless repeater system to be more stable. Apparently you only have to get the signal about 2000km to Concordia and you're good to go - so why not deploy a wireless repeater station every X kilometers?

    There are no obstructions in the path except for snow/ice storms in the air - surely one can find a frequency that deals with this problem well and provides decent bandwidth ver a decent distance right? If you can go 20km at a time it's only 100 repeater stations along the way (or maybe you'd place 2-3 of them 1 km or so apart at each repeat point for redundancy)

    --
    11*43+456^2
    1. Re:Why not wireless? by mikeplokta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought of this, too. But how are you going to power those wireless repeaters. Solar is a bit of a bust, since it's dark for five or six months of the year. Of course, you could always lay a power cable...

    2. Re:Why not wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no obstructions in the path except for snow/ice storms in the air ... and the fact that you'd have to install repeaters in the middle of the ocean. Some of the roughest seas in the world, in fact.

    3. Re:Why not wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to power them? Nuclear radiation. Not very efficient, but it works for satellites.

    4. Re:Why not wireless? by bobthemuse · · Score: 1

      How would such a system be powered? You'd still have to run cable, maybe a little easier since it's not fibre, but overall I think the cost would be higher.

    5. Re:Why not wireless? by splume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I think going wired is a great test to see if it can be done. If we happen to take this space exploration thing seriously, we are going to need to figure out how to keep cables from breaking in *much* colder regions (dark side of the moon). The research that comes out of this I think will be well spent

      --

      Who is John Galt?
    6. Re:Why not wireless? by Yarn · · Score: 3, Informative

      The fragility of fibre is overstated. I have 5 types of fibre on my lab bench, 'bare' single mode fibre. This is fragile, a touch with a razor blade then bending it is how I cut it so I can join it again with the fusion splicer. I also have some jacketed single mode fibre, which is pretty tough, you can cut it with wire cutters though. There's some strange bits of multimode fibre which are about the same as jacketed single mode, but then there's a bit of telecomms fibre. It's tough stuff, I've looped a bit of spare over my chair and I can stand on the loop. I'd test the affect on transmission but my rig has something more important in it currently.

      In summary, the glass is fragile, but strong. With a proper coating it is tough and strong.

      --
      -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
    7. Re:Why not wireless? by Libor+Vanek · · Score: 1

      ...and power cable can be much more cheaper and "hostile enviroment friendly" then fiber...

    8. Re:Why not wireless? by dpuu · · Score: 1

      Isn't the south pole known for its massive electrical storms, aka the southern lights? How well does wireless work in these conditions?

      --
      Opinions my own, statements of fact may contain errors
    9. Re:Why not wireless? by Cheeko · · Score: 2

      I don't think the cold is the biggest challenge in this, I imagine they have decent experience with cold electronics. The biggest problem as I see it, is the movement of the ice. The tension placed on that cable in specific locations will be immense. I forsee the cable binding with the ice in spots and as those locations move stressing the cable. And its not like the ice will just move under the entire cable, as a cable that length will weigh many tons.

    10. Re:Why not wireless? by Theom · · Score: 0

      Nuclear radiation? Satellites??? You mean the sun???

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
    11. Re:Why not wireless? by Osty · · Score: 1

      we are going to need to figure out how to keep cables from breaking in *much* colder regions (dark side of the moon).

      As long as we're talking about imaginary places, what does it matter if we have a real solution? Just make something up, and it'll work, because there's no such place as the "dark side of the moon". (Or, at least, it's not a fixed place, so while some part of the moon is always dark, it's not always the same spot, just as with Earth and other planets.)

    12. Re:Why not wireless? by mpe · · Score: 2

      Surely for this amount of money one could devices a wireless repeater system to be more stable.

      So you want to build a set of towers on 4km thick ice, in the middle of nowhere and in an environment which makes pouring concrete impossible and needs exotic steels to be of any use at all? This will come with a high price tag and well as a high cost of fixing any bits which break.

      There are no obstructions in the path except for snow/ice storms in the air - surely one can find a frequency that deals with this problem well and provides decent bandwidth ver a decent distance right?

      What do you propose to power these stations with? About the only workable system would be RTG or fission. IIRC there is a treaty which would prevent beinging in the required nuclear fuel.

      If you can go 20km at a time it's only 100 repeater stations along the way (or maybe you'd place 2-3 of them 1 km or so apart at each repeat point for redundancy)

      Your repeaters would probably cost several million dollers each, plus maintanance. The estimated $250M for the fibre link looks considerably cheaper.

    13. Re:Why not wireless? by Quixadhal · · Score: 2

      True enough,

      But I think it's the gradual pressures that will need to be dealt with. Sure, a flexible cable can handle instantaneous stress, but how about being dragged along by a moving sheet of ice that you're embedded in? They might lay it atop the surface at the start, but it won't stay on top. Even without any melting, drifts will accumulate and bury it... then it will be dragged along with the direction the ice flows. I don't know how fast things like that move, but since different sections might move in different directions, you'd need quite a bit of slack to last more than 5 or 10 years.

      The only way I can think of would be to keep it both strong enough and slightly warm so it "cuts" as the ice moves, instead of being dragged along for the ride. Warmth means power consumption, and I think that would be in short supply for at least half the year.

    14. Re:Why not wireless? by Nerftoe · · Score: 1

      So... why not go wireless?

      Because Antartica is made up of sheets of ice. These sheets of ice can be up to several miles thick. They cannot easily build towers on the ice. If they were to do this, the towers would shift slowly and gradually get out of line with the other towers. I wouldn't think that burrowing miles through ice to build towers would be an option either.

    15. Re:Why not wireless? by splume · · Score: 1

      Good call. I always forget which one it was. I was trying to think back to my HS physics class and all I remember the teacher saying was, something about Gary Larson and Pink Floyd. :)

      --

      Who is John Galt?
    16. Re:Why not wireless? by splume · · Score: 1

      You bring up a valid point. Perhaps then what they need to design is a fiber cable that has more flexibility than your average glass strand. Either that, or they are going to have to improve the wireless connectivity.

      --

      Who is John Galt?
    17. Re:Why not wireless? by metoc · · Score: 1

      For that matter why not a dedicated satellite solution? So far they are only grabbing time on old geos that have slipped their orbits.
      For $250 Million I think some one would be able to engineer a broadband satellite solution that would work over the southern pole. A good solution would also allow them to sell excess capacity to locations like Argentina that have high squint angles and have similar problems with geos.

    18. Re:Why not wireless? by photon317 · · Score: 2


      Well, there are certainly some issues facing wireless towers as well, but I'd like to defend against some of them:

      1) You could spike some towers into the ice here and there - I'm not talking huge things, I'm talking 10-20 foot tall small towers.

      2) I don't believe the path crosses any ocean, or at least the fiber article didn't seem to indicate this.

      3) By not making it too directional, you can overcome the drift in the wireless path.

      4) You could run a power cable to power them - I think engineering a big electrical cable along this path has got to be easier than running fiber.

      But, supposing none of this works - how about some truly innovative and novel approach to antartic communication then? For instance (I'm I'm just throwing this out, it's a stretch) could one engineer some lightwave communication *through* the ice? Perhaps at a certain depth (a few hundred meters at most?) the ice takes on a very regular crystalline structure, permitting light signalling with some very custom equipment?

      --
      11*43+456^2
    19. Re:Why not wireless? by Deep+Penguin · · Score: 1

      There are standalone, automated weather stations in a few locations around the continent - AGO sites (Antarctic Geophysical Observatory - see the
      weather at AGO-1). They have already solved the problem of how to build and power such things - propane - Hank Hill's favorite. You could use solar for the Summer to reduce fuel consumption, but in the end, you are burning stuff to make heat and electricity. At least fiber is passive.

      And, yes, RTGs are illegal according to treaty. They used to use them in the 1970s (for automated weather stations), but the last one was removed over five years ago.

    20. Re:Why not wireless? by lightcycler · · Score: 1

      Is there not a ring of mountains around the outside of the Antarctican continent, with flat ice covering the entire region inside?

      A highly-directional antenna atop one of those mountains could be powered using a cable from the coast (which would survive better than fiber, being (a) thicker, and (b) very slightly heated)

      Would the south pole still be "over the horizon" from the top of such a mountain? Would they still have snow-fade problems with a radio link?

    21. Re:Why not wireless? by shess · · Score: 1

      They could even use a "statite" (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/statite). Basically, a satellite which uses a solar sail to counteract gravity. It's not a satellite, because it doesn't orbit, it hovers.

      [Yeah, like we'll be able to build sails like that anytime soon :-).]

    22. Re:Why not wireless? by Snarph · · Score: 2

      Radiation from RTGs, is that what you're talking about? I don't think many (if any) satellites use those -- they're mainly used for probes (ie: Cassini). They're powered by Pu-238, and I don't think you'd find too many people eager to leave that lying around.

    23. Re:Why not wireless? by taernim · · Score: 1

      Get a battery with a really long charge on it...

      --
      "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    24. Re:Why not wireless? by Hassan79 · · Score: 1
      They're powered by Pu-238, and I don't think you'd find too many people eager to leave that lying around.

      Moreover, it's forbidden to leave nuclear waste in Antarctica, according to the Antarctic Treaty

      --

      Don't drink and su! antidisestablishmentariazationally
    25. Re:Why not wireless? by vitus · · Score: 1

      It is windy there. So, there are enough energy
      to power the station, even part of energy will be
      used to keep accumulators warm.

  31. This seems irresponsible by Microsift · · Score: 1

    Does the benefit of getting broadband to the South Pole outweigh the environmental impact of getting it there?

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
    1. Re:This seems irresponsible by stratjakt · · Score: 1
      environmental impact of laying a cable over millions of hectares of nothing?

      Can't hippies leave antarctica for us? There are no trees to hug there.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:This seems irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that it's empty means that any change/addition produces far more impact than in a place with a more robust and varied environment.

      In a place where the temperature varies between 40 farenheit and 110 farenheit over the course of a year, 10 degrees of warming produces almost no effect. In a place where the temperature varies between 0 and -140 in a year, 10 degress becomes the difference between walking and swimming.

  32. If we wait by ericdano · · Score: 4, Informative

    If we wait a few more years we can do an undersea cable.

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
    1. Re:If we wait by chill · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Arctic is up north, Antarctic is down south.

      Up north, the arctic ice cap is mostly over open ocean, except for Greenland.

      Down south, Antarctica actually has land beneath most of the ice.

      If it melts, you'd have to dig, not swim.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:If we wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if greenpeace has ever heard of seasons?

    3. Re:If we wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder, what will you environmentalists do when you learn one day that there is a God who sent His only son to pay for your sins? I hope you learn, and I hope you learn before it is too late. Worship of the Earth is a poor substitute for worship of the Lord.

    4. Re:If we wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus said that the meek wil inherit the earth. That will be a crappy inheritance if we don't take care of it until he returns.

    5. Re:If we wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Doobie Brothers said "One toke over the line Sweet Jesus". That would be cool. Toking with Jesus.

  33. This sucks by Lxy · · Score: 3

    If I have a laptop at the SOUTH POLE, I can check my e-mail and read Slashdot. If I'm at home, 20,000 feet from Qwest's CO, I have to use dialup.

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
  34. The bastards are armed! by NanoGator · · Score: 2

    Now I can say with authority "If they can get it to the South Pole, you can get it here." next time I call AT&T BI.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:The bastards are armed! by innate · · Score: 1

      Pony up $250 million and I'm sure ATTBI would be happy to provide you with broadband, too.

      --
      No, I don't want to explore the Recycle Bin.
    2. Re:The bastards are armed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure can. For 250 million smackeroonies!

  35. Radio, not wire by innate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems like an exceptionally fragile way to get broadband, after all the ice sheets on which the cable is laid are constantly moving. The Amundsen station itself has moved over the years. Locating and repairing the cable when it inevitably snaps is going to be very expensive.

    Unfortunately a microwave-based solution would be overwhelmed by the weather conditions there. And RF probably won't provide enough bandwidth. So they may not have many other options.

    --
    No, I don't want to explore the Recycle Bin.
  36. tux by stuuf · · Score: 1

    they can email us some real photographs to use for the Linux logo!

    --

    Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it

  37. Re:Not such a good idea? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Native Americans? At the South Pole?

    And if the wire melts an iceberg, they must have gotten something terribly wrong.
    Such as using a laser weapon instead of a communication laser...

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  38. Fiber? How horrible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems like the wrong solution. They really need some microwave stuff. The force of shifting ice is enough to snap any cable.

    Alternatively, they could maybe drill a hole 4km down and lay the cable as is customary on the sea floor. At least it'd only break along the last 4km. We can drill 4km holes in ice, right? (send a hot metal thing down?)

  39. It's a bit worrying by Subcarrier · · Score: 1

    Now that they have access to all the porn they want, they will have no reason to go out and meet people.

    --
    "I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
    1. Re:It's a bit worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea well they have to keep "mini-mee" warm somehow...

  40. Cable? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

    If only we could send data relaying machines into outer space...

    ???

  41. Why not just use Iridium? by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Iridium is back up and running, covers the entire planet (the satellites are in low polar orbits) and the U.S. Government has a bulk buy deal on Iridium satellite minutes. (DoD now owns part of the system, having bought in after the bankruptcy.)

    1. Re:Why not just use Iridium? by zmalone · · Score: 1

      Iridium is a 2400baud connection, advertised as 10 kilobit/s, however that is after Iridium's ~4/1 compression. Something tells me that the fiber line they are pulling has quite a bit more bandwidth then that, although both solutions undoubtedly suffer from bad latency.

    2. Re:Why not just use Iridium? by Animats · · Score: 2

      True, but how much bandwidth do they really need? Spending a quarter billion dollars of tax money to support web browsing for fifty people is a bit much.

    3. Re:Why not just use Iridium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Spending a quarter billion dollars of tax money to support web browsing for fifty people is a bit much"

      Do you think the people down there are just hanging out surfing the web?

      The station is there so that research can be done. Research generally results in data. Sometimes lots of it. It'd be nice to have a way to get it back up here relatively quickly (especially during the long winter when nobody can fly in or out) The longer you have to wait for some tapes to get flown back up here, the more time you'll lose not knowing that your experiment is busted.

    4. Re:Why not just use Iridium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doh, because DoD owns it. Why would researchers from other countries want to use it only to be eavesdropped on?

  42. This is one of the companies bidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  43. what about Wireless? by gclef · · Score: 2

    Hands up: who thinks wireless (microwave, 802.11, whatever) would be a much better idea here?

    1. Re:what about Wireless? by unDiWahn · · Score: 1

      Um, over 1600 kilometers? You wouldn't even have a line-of-site at that range!

      Or are you intending to place powered repeaters every so often along the route, over the south pole...

    2. Re:what about Wireless? by AlgUSF · · Score: 1

      If you did have repeaters, how would you power them? Solar? Can you imagine if something goes wrong with repeater #7 in the middle of a huge storm. Hey Kenney, take the chopper and go fix that repeater.


      Oh my god, we killed kenney! We're Bastards!

      --


      I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
    3. Re:what about Wireless? by FreeLinux · · Score: 2, Informative

      They certainly seem like better solutions, at first glance. But, when you look more closely they are just as problematic.

      These wireless relay stations would suffer greatly form weather interference. Antarctic storms have horendous winds, insane cold and lots of snow and ice. Additionally, how would you power such relay stations, solar? I doubt that this would be effective as batteries are going to have serious issues at -100F.

      The cable solution is no good either. The movement or flow of the ice will destroy the cable before the project is completed. They are talking about laying the cable on top of the ice. This will be covered by several feet of ice in the first few months. This tightly locks the cable to the flowing ice which would of course be disasterous. What happens when a crevass opens up or an existing one shifts? Also, hanging the cables on poles is no good either. Wind will be a major problem, not to mention the weight of ice forming on the suspended cable.

      When all the present options are closely examined, satellite is the best alternative. The up front costs are high but, so is the $250Million to install this fibre. But, beyond the initial investment there is far less on going cost. Maintenance will be ngligable in comparison to cable. Atmospheric interruptions will be less than wireless. Satellite can also be installed/launched much more rapidly than this project has any hope of completion.

    4. Re:what about Wireless? by mpe · · Score: 2

      Hands up: who thinks wireless (microwave, 802.11, whatever) would be a much better idea here?

      When did 802.11 aquire a range of just over 1,000 miles?

    5. Re:what about Wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They are talking about laying the cable on top of the ice. This will be covered by several feet of ice in the first few months.

      unless I'm mistaken, Antartica is a desert- gets less than 2" of precip a year. So ice formation on top of the cable shouldn't be a problem.

    6. Re:what about Wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't use microwaves because they would melt all the ice and cause worldwide floods.

      DUH.

    7. Re:what about Wireless? by Loligo · · Score: 1

      >Additionally, how would you power such relay
      >stations, solar?
      >...
      >Wind will be a major problem

      Conclusion left as an exercise for the reader.

      -l

  44. Just the South Pole? by Gudlyf · · Score: 1

    I bet Santa's jealous.

    --
    Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
  45. Gimme a Pringles can by mac123 · · Score: 1

    A laptop, a wireless card and a Pringles can for a directional antenna ought to do it.

  46. OOPS, Type in the link, this link works. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of companies like this one are bidding http://www.sintercast.com

  47. In other news... by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    medical staff at the station haved reported an increase in frostbitten "appendages" amoung the male researchers...

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  48. paper on Antartica's network by Raiford · · Score: 4, Informative
    The current network connecting the existing research facilities at the South Pole is quite extensive and lends itself to satallite links. It would seem that another satallite would be the best solution. Check out the article by Raytheon Polar Services which describes the current technology down there.

    --
    "player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
    1. Re:paper on Antartica's network by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      That's what I don't understand. I would imagine that for $250M they could launch probably 4 microsatellites devoted to Antartica commo into polar orbits - four because that way there's always one well over the horizon and there's always a spare....

      Anyone with more knowledge care to comment on the feasibility of that and why they want to go cable?

      Satellites would be a heck of a lot less risky to lives too (care to take bets how many lives could be lost laying cable this way? or fixing it?)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  49. Re:Obligatory (Obligatory) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that you can take on the obligation yourself? I think not.

  50. Not necessarily by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Instead of laying the cable in a straight line, you lay it in S-shapes. Big S-shapes. That way, there's LOTS of slack, say 500% slack, for the ice sheet movement.

    Of course, you have to use a fairly flexible conduit -- copper piping should do nicely, as long as you can figure out how to make sure it doesn't kink too badly on compression. The S-shapes, again, would help, but a better material would be even better. Maybe copper line with a thick kevlar braid, along the lines of the braid used in a Chinese finger puzzle/trap.

    The Canadian Armed Forces has to recalibrate their microwave dishes every eight years or so up north for CFS Alert on Elsmere Island, because the ice moves. That gets expensive in the long run (Snowcats, helicopters, men), and would be MUCH worse for Antarctica.

    And finally, finding a break in the fiber wouldn't be too hard, ever heard of a time-delay reflectometer?

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:Not necessarily by maggard · · Score: 2
      Instead of laying the cable in a straight line, you lay it in S-shapes. Big S-shapes. That way, there's LOTS of slack, say 500% slack, for the ice sheet movement.

      You're assuming a smooth frictionless surface.

      Rather the Antartic terrain is a chaotic one full of swells and dales, cliffs and chasms. It may look "smooth" from far away but up close it's as rich a terrain as any more temperate one. There are wide smoothish plains but they're not the rule any more then North America is all prarie, and the same as other places there are innumerable small features even in the great expanses.

      Furthermore any object on the surface will soon sink due to solar warming leaving it tightly locked in for much of it's length. What doesn't slide downhill or with the wind will soon be set in place as if it had been encased in concrete; unfortunately parts of this concrete are moving at different slow rates. Sure long sections will be regularly exposed due to local conditions, winds, etc. but I'm guessing at the end of 12 month at least 50% of any cable would be embedded and 75%+ after the second summer.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    2. Re:Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got it right, macroscopically, this stuff can be modelled smoothly, but at the metre-scale, dislocations would *screw* anything attached to, or embedded in, the surface.
      Supercooled superconductive DSL link would be lovely to test though, for the 2 seconds it survived...

    3. Re:Not necessarily by innate · · Score: 1

      And finally, finding a break in the fiber wouldn't be too hard, ever heard of a time-delay reflectometer?

      It will tell you the distance to the break, but it won't help you physically locate the S-curved, sunk-in-the-ice, location-shifted, cable!

      Unless you have GPS transmitters attached to it. Hmmm...

      --
      No, I don't want to explore the Recycle Bin.
  51. Bounce the signal by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    off the ozone layer...

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    1. Re:Bounce the signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the south pole? What ozone layer? :)

    2. Re:Bounce the signal by DLWormwood · · Score: 1

      What ozone layer? (-: The atmosphere over Anarctica has a measurably thinner ozone layer (sometimes mistakenly called "a hole" by the press) than the rest of the globe. It wouldn't be as effective bouncing signals off of it.

      I'll leave the "Did CFC's do it?" flame war to some other suspecting troll.

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    3. Re:Bounce the signal by wilfrid · · Score: 1

      The Ozone layer (stratospheric ozone) is somewhere around 10 to 25-30 miles above sea level. Scientists reckon that we've done enough to control the depletion for it to cap around 2010 but even then the most notable hole in the ozone layer is above Antartica as the other guys said. Still, you were being ironic I'm sure.

  52. P...I...N...G T...I...M...E...S by barnaclebarnes · · Score: 2

    Some of the data transfer they might want will probably be very data and time sensitive. Wireless just won't cut it. Think if the Internet vs Internet2. Internet2 is need by certain apps just because of things like QOS, bandwidth, etc.

    Oh and of course the power thing....but that has already been mentioned.

    --
    [Please type your sig here.]
  53. WWW by roccothegreat · · Score: 1

    I can see it now . . . Young scientist gets frosbite on his "Willy" while pleasuring himself to www.HotBabes.com.

    nice!

  54. South Pole Broadband by dark&stormynight · · Score: 1

    Wow, they get broadband and I can't even get DSL to my apartment!

  55. Even odder... by TibbonZero · · Score: 2

    Even odder are some of the "No Service Possible" field checks that we get from Business Customers in Greensboro. Hmm I wonder what the build cost is on that. (I work for a large cable ISP...)

    $6/ft*5,249,344ft == $31,496,062 USD. Well that's just to drop the cable. And that assumes that the cable we have will work with the cold.
    So double that number and.. it's about 63 million dollars. That's a hefty field check.

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
    1. Re:Even odder... by palutke · · Score: 1

      . . . it's about 63 million dollars. That's a hefty field check.

      yes, but it's probably still less than what it would cost to design, build, and deploy a dedicated satellite.

      --
      'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
  56. Broadband on the moon by unDiWahn · · Score: 1

    Well that makes sense -- what with all this space elevator talk running around, we should just build it out of fiber-optics and tie the other end to the moon, thus killing two birds with one stone, as well at the entire earth when the cord pulls the moon out of its non-geo-stationary orbit and destroying the world.

    Oh right -- so that I'm still on topic (yeah too late), they should attach wireless repeaters to the back of all the penguins, and use them to relay the signal to shore...

    Or am I at the wrong pole again?

    1. Re:Broadband on the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't polar bears eat penguins?

      Because they can't get the wrapper off!

  57. No Need For Cables by cmdr_beeftaco · · Score: 1

    The correct answer to the problem is to use ice to carry am optical signal using what I call a 'laser' No messy cables or expensive satellites.

    1. Re:No Need For Cables by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Natural ice is nowhere near the purity required for low-loss transmission of signal.

    2. Re:No Need For Cables by guile*fr · · Score: 1

      yea sure... clear line of sight through 80km/h ice storms

  58. If that's the criteria you use by Raul654 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    this post has merit since it is true. MOD PARENT UP!!!

    1 = 1

    Now mod me up, bitch.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  59. Cabling solution.... by TibbonZero · · Score: 2

    Perhaps running the cabling in a conduit that is filled with warm oil or water would be good. You could have it in a pipe and have heaters every X distance. Either that or just a super insulated shielding. The laser itself produces a good bit of heat. I forget if the high powered lasers would heat it any to begin with.
    I guess they need a bungie cord/fibre solution now though eh? Those glaciers moving can be a little dangerous to little olde fibre.

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
  60. Two Towers by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe they could just put up two really tall towers, one at each end, and do microwave transmission.
    Then, if something ever breaks due to the extreme environment, you'd know where to find the problem.

    Now, just how tall would those towers have to be?
    Well, if the target station is at 75 degrees, then...
    7926 miles (earth diameter)/2 - cos((90-75)/2)*(7926 miles)/2 = 34 miles.

    hmmmm... maybe a cable is a better idea after all. Can someone check my math?

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Two Towers by curunir · · Score: 3, Funny

      As long as you're connecting The Two Towers, why not use a couple palantírs?

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    2. Re:Two Towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just watch out for sand niggers from the George Bush and Osama bin Laden Al Queda network.

  61. Global warming or normal climate cycles? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's a given fact that the planet goes through climate cycles (read: Ice Ages, which come and go)

    Ice started receding LONG before humans started emitting greenhouse gases. Keep in mind that most of New York and a decent amount of New Jersey is... Glacial moraine???? Yup. A long, long time ago, the place where I am sitting was under ice. Probably before humans had even discovered fire.

    How much of this recession is from greenhouse gases and how much is from normal climate cycles?

    Greenhouse gases are definately having an effect. The question is, are they having as much effect as Greenpeace would like us to think?

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Global warming or normal climate cycles? by ericdano · · Score: 2

      True. It's hard to imagine places that I've been, like Yosemite, being totally under ice. Yet, it was.

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
  62. remote power by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

    They have compact wind power devices from Windside, a Finnish company. Their equipment regularly runs at -60C, not sure how much colder it could take, though.

    For the summer, supplemental solar would work, and batteries (somehow magically kept warm) can provide a good buffer.

  63. Mod this up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent notions here. I rather like the idea of Antarctica being used as a staging platform for the Internet in hostile environments.

  64. I think... by ender-iii · · Score: 1

    I think I can speak for every one who doesn't care when I say who cares?

    --
    ender-iii
  65. and that's not all! by AgentGray · · Score: 1


    At least my local Starbucks is getting it...

    Of course, they could use a Starbucks in the South Pole...

    --
    "Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
  66. the ice shifts position! by ehackathorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One interesting note: I think the ice shifts about 10 meters per year at the pole. Don't know what the rest of Antarctica is like, but it presents an interesting problem if they are planning on laying the cable on the ground...

  67. laying cable by helicopter/airplane by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 1

    If they are just going to lay the cable on top of the ice, which is more or less smooth, why can't they just put a huge spool of fiber in a slow flying airplane or a helicopter. They could fly close to the ground so it would be falling from 350000ft. Not much to crash into. The spool could have an electric motor to deploy the cable at the same speed the plane was traveling at to avoid creating tension in the cable. The process would be so quick you could lay several cables over different routes for redundancy.

    Why should this be more difficult than laying fiber optic cables at the bottom of the ocean.

    1. Re:laying cable by helicopter/airplane by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1

      Definitely wouldn't work, you must heat the cable as you lay it.

    2. Re:laying cable by helicopter/airplane by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      Well, from 350,000 feet, the cable should heat on reentry. :p

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    3. Re:laying cable by helicopter/airplane by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1
      Not too many helicopters or airplanes at that altitude!!!!!

      No fibre needs to be treated gently at the best of times and kept warm whenever you flex it.

    4. Re:laying cable by helicopter/airplane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I guess you just have to wait until the summer. But don't forget, the south pole is in the southern hemisphere, so their summer is actually our winter. Then you could even enjoy 24 hour work days as you fly your HUGE jumbo jet with the capacity of holding .. lets say 20 miles of rolled-up cable.... leaving you only 400 trips to lay 8000 miles worth.. then theres the fun of finding all of the cable ends and connecting them together... damn... droppped that cable about 150 feet too far away... well no problem.. dragging a piece of cable 20 miles long across Antartica must be easy.. after all.. ice does not create much friction....

  68. Re:P...I...N...G T...I...M...E...S by LMCBoy · · Score: 2

    It's got to be better than what they currently have. I was actually thinking about "wintering over" down there. They get an email-grade connection to the satellites about 4 times a day. That's it.

    Ok, stick me in a tin can at the most isolated spot on Earth for 6 months. Ok, no sun for that entire period. Ok, the harshest conditions on the planet outside, and not exactly the Hilton inside. But no internet connection? Dealbreaker.

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  69. Re:Not such a good idea? by tps12 · · Score: 0

    South America is very close to Antarctica. So yes, most indigenous South Poleans would indeed be considered South Americans, ethnically, if not geographically.

    As for wires melting the ice, I think you're neglecting waste heat. In elementary school, you might have done the experiment where you lay a string, weighted on both ends, across a block of ice, and observe as it works its way through the ice. A wire would do the same thing, but faster, thanks to what little energy leaked through the heat shielding.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
  70. An immodest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, rather than providing broadband p0^H^Hinternet access, wouldn't it be easier just to make the place attractive to ambitious female scientists?

    (Think of it as a rehearsal for a really long space mission without the alledged advantages of zero-G;)

  71. Stuff the South Pole! by Zaphy42 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why bother with broadband at the South Pole when British Telecom can't even be arsed to enable ADSL in my local exchange because it's "not commerically viable to upgrade the exchange"? :(

  72. Geometry issues by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
    From the article,

    The South Pole is the only permanently inhabited place on Earth that cannot see geosynchronous communication satellites, a fact that severely restricts communication with the base.

    I take it that the North Pole is not permanently inhabited? I'm actually kind of surprised by this--it's much easier to get to the North Pole than the South, and there are other permanent settlements much closer at hand. (CFB Alert, which is responsible for watching for Russian ICBMs and bombers coming over the Pole, comes to mind.)

    --
    ~Idarubicin
    1. Re:Geometry issues by Algan · · Score: 1

      Antarctica is a continent and the ice shelf there is pretty stable (well, as stable as it can be). At the North Pole you have an ocean and a wildy drifting ice cap. Plus the ice cap there gets thin during the summer, it's not unusual to see ice few inches thick sometimes. IIRC I've read a story about a recently discovered open water patch at the north pole, which comes as no surprise given the global warming problem...

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    2. Re:Geometry issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that there is an airplane that, at one time, was located under the ice at the North Pole, right?

      The North Pole wasn't a huge solid block of ice which lasted a few hundred years. Its ever changing.

      (The airplane landed at the North Pole, the passengers got out, and then the airplane broke through the ice. The crew/passengers were picked up by another plane).

  73. Re:P...I...N...G T...I...M...E...S by gr0k · · Score: 1

    Well considering they currently have an intermitant satallite connection... wireless ping times would most likely be a lot better.

    --
    http://evoketv.com - TV Listings 2.0
  74. Wired Article by mclaugh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Last month, Wired ran an article about the new construction at the South Pole. It makes no mention of this fiber.
    As an Engineer for one of the Telephone Companies, I can tell you that fiber is stronger than you think. I had a pole get hit, knocking the cables the ground- a few 18 wheelers drove over the cables, partially crushing a copper cable. But, the two fiber cables were uninjured (part of their sheathing was shorn away, though).
    Still, running fiber to the South Pole is idiotic- think of how long (and how costly) the FLAG project was!

  75. Using a new kind of fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a special fiber, I think it's called Goatse Fiber, because it can STR-E-E-E-E-EEETCH (insert Wile E. Coyote type sound effect here)!!!

  76. Re:Not such a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those are good points, but you're forgetting all the cancer patients that get sent to the south pole and need to use the internet to remove their spleens. A few dead caribou shouldn't prevent us from high speed internet or oil pipelines.

  77. Is it still that Barber Pole? by sharkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    And does it move? Or has progress killed it off, just like the barber poles here?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  78. Re:P...I...N...G T...I...M...E...S by kfg · · Score: 1

    The only time sensitive data to/from Byrd Station are their Quake packets.

    They may just have to live with a perpetual LAN party.

    KFG

  79. Copper piping - Better shaping, not materials by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    Check out Andrew Corporation's HELIAX line of coax cables. http://www.andrew.com/products/trans_line/default. aspx

    This is semirigid coaxial cable in LARGE diameters. The outer conductor is solid copper, not braided.

    The trick to flexibility is that the copper jacket has a helical corrugation - Much more flexibility, MUCH harder to kink. For what amounts to a variant of 1/2-inch copper pipe filled with PE foam, their FSJ4 superflexible coax is AMAZINGLY flexible. (Sucks compared to our friend RG58, but as I said, given its diameter and the fact that the outer shield is solid, it's impressive.)

    In fact, I believe Andrew does make fiber optic cables based on the Heliax concept.

    Yup - http://www.andrew.com/products/trans_line/amarra.a spx
    In addition they have fiberglass-epoxy composite jacket cable.

    Disclaimer: I do work for Andrew, although not for the division in question.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  80. Issues Point by Point by maggard · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Satellite

      Lovely solution, just one problem: They don't stay put.

      Sure over the equator they can orbit at the same rate the planet rotates and so appear "fixed" but that only works over that narrow ecliptic. Instead to cover extreme N. & S. latitudes one needs sats on a much more inclined orbit and then they're out of sight much of the time, a dozen or so would be required to provide continuous coverage. That means a couple of expensive launches, a serious of expensive sats, and of course their own-going management (course-corrections, problem resolution, etc.)

    2. Radio Repeaters

      Why not build a series of microwave repeaters or such, bring the cable to the shore then broadcast the rest of the way? A couple of reasons:

      1. Putting in place that many repeater stations across the Antarctic would be difficult. They'd need to be tall, durable (in super-cold weather), well-anchored, and able to compensate for slowly moving stations.
      2. Getting back to them to fix any problems would be well nigh impossible much of the year so lots of redundancy, increased complexity, etc.
      3. Where's the power to come from? There isn't any local grid to plug in to and as the Canadians & Siberians will attest running long power lines across extreme latitudes is difficult (no grounding, lots of electromagnetic effects from aural storms, etc.) Solar won't work for a few months a year plus there's the buildup problem, burning hydrocarbons wouldn't be allowed plus would require regular refueling, and radiothermal seems very unlikely.

    3. Fiberoptic Cable

      Yes fiber isn't the most robust material on its own. On the other hand it can be clad in all sorts of super-durable materials to protect it.

      To protect from stretching the fiber might be coiled inside an outer cladding so it's 2x or 3x as long as required. Or it could be threaded through an outer cladding (think 'garden hose') so it can slide back and forth under slight tension between 1km "reservoir" loops.

      Of course there's still the problem of powering the repeaters, but then that's why this contract is out there: To get folks interested in solving the problem.

    Hmm, what would the Thunderbirds have done?

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    1. Re:Issues Point by Point by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      the stretching issue can be solved by laying the fiber in an S-curve. This allows it to compress when needed and stretch when needed. The key is to put enough curve in it to allow for all the 'play' that it is likely have over a given year, and to identify the direction of stretching so that the curve can be centered around the vector.

    2. Re:Issues Point by Point by maggard · · Score: 2
      the stretching issue can be solved by laying the fiber in an S-curve.

      You're assuming a smooth frictionless surface.

      Rather the Antartic terrain is a chaotic one full of swells and dales, cliffs and chasms. It may look "smooth" from far away but up close it's as rich a terrain as any more temperate one. There are wide smoothish plains but they're not the rule any more then North America is all prarie, and the same as other places there are innumerable small features even in the great expanses.

      Furthermore any object on the surface will soon sink due to solar warming leaving it tightly locked in for much of it's length. What doesn't slide downhill or with the wind will soon be set in place as if it had been encased in concrete; unfortunately parts of this concrete are moving at different slow rates. Sure long sections will be regularly exposed due to local conditions, winds, etc. but I'm guessing at the end of 12 month at least 50% of any cable would be embedded and 75%+ after the second summer.

      Or, I could be completely off-base and you've just won yourself a contract.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    3. Re:Issues Point by Point by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      actually, I was assuming uniform expansion of the ice pack, but I can't assume that either, so you raise many valid points.

      what you could do is embed the actual cable in something hollow, like some flexible conduit or pvc pipe. Lay the flexible pipe in an s-curve, and pull the fiber through. That'll let the relatively fragile cable move back and forth, while the conduit absorbs the stretching. The conduit could break, but all that would cause is water to get inside and freeze up - which you'd have if you laid the fiber out on the ice anyway.

    4. Re:Issues Point by Point by maggard · · Score: 2
      what you could do is embed the actual cable in something hollow, like some flexible conduit or pvc pipe.

      You mean like this?:

      Or it could be threaded through an outer cladding (think 'garden hose') so it can slide back and forth under slight tension between 1km "reservoir" loops.

      Well that's a clever idea!

      grin

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    5. Re:Issues Point by Point by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      duh, sorry original poster

      two people agreed, it must be a standard :D

    6. Re:Issues Point by Point by edunbar93 · · Score: 2

      2 Radio Repeaters

      Why not build a series of microwave repeaters or such, bring the cable to the shore then broadcast the rest of the way? A couple of reasons:

      3. Where's the power to come from? There isn't any local grid to plug in to and as the Canadians & Siberians will attest running long power lines across extreme latitudes is difficult (no grounding, lots of electromagnetic effects from aural storms, etc.) Solar won't work for a few months a year plus there's the buildup problem, burning hydrocarbons wouldn't be allowed plus would require regular refueling, and radiothermal seems very unlikely.

      You forgot wind power. If I recall correctly, Antarctica is the windiest place on earth, and as such would be an ideal place for wind generation, assuming your generators can withstand the environment that is. :)

      There would likely be communications blackouts when power isn't available, (storing electricity is a bitch at the best of times, doubly so when your batteries freeze) but probably not nearly as much of a problem as current solutions, especially if power requirements are low.

      Adjusting the dishes might not be as hard as you think, especially since the direction and rate of movement would be known. If you really like, you can have your repeaters report their position every X hours with GPS so that the other towers will know where to point automatically. Also, the beam of radiation is focused about as much as a flashlight, so it's not like it's excruciatingly important when a station moves a few centimeters to the right. Omnidirectional repeaters would be less of a hassle in this instance, but you'd need more of them or you wouldn't exactly have a high speed connection at the end. :)

      However, I'm guessing that this has either already been done, or it's already been thought of and discarded because of some kind of impracticality. More than likely it's too much of a pain in the ass to fix when things break down, or it's too complex and thus breaks down more often. This solution seemed pretty obvious to me, and I'm not even close to being an engineer.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  81. Re:Fiber? How horrible. by mpe · · Score: 2

    Alternatively, they could maybe drill a hole 4km down and lay the cable as is customary on the sea floor. At least it'd only break along the last 4km. We can drill 4km holes in ice, right? (send a hot metal thing down?)

    You'd probably want a 4km deep trench. Otherwise you'd need some kind of mole to drag 1,600 km of cable behind it.

  82. Re:You must read this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, great. You know there's problems. Instead of writing letters and then going to eat your vegeterian taboule with your hippie friends, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Unless you're as inactive as the America you decry?

  83. You are thinking of the Antartic as the Arctic by kfg · · Score: 2

    They are really quite different enviroments. The Antarctic is a *continent.* There are no 'iceflows.' There is also comparitively little drifting of free snow, Antarctica is the most arid desert on earth, precipitaion being measured in handfulls of inchs per *century.*

    The glacial icepacks are *miles* deep in places and heating the cable would see it sinking down to the bottom, to be crushed and ripped apart by the *expansion and contraction* of the glacial mass. The ice does not 'move' anymore than it does on your lawn.

    KFG

  84. Don't bother (Re:The bastards are armed!) by ccg · · Score: 1

    My cable provider is AT&T "Broadband," and I've been calling them for six years asking for a cable modem. Actually, it was not always AT&T. It used to be TCI Cable. I asked them for a cable modem about once every six months. The people in the office didn't even know what I was talking about. They worked for the freakin' cable company, and they didn't even know what a cable modem was. Then AT&T "Broadband" bought TCI. Now, they understand what I'm talking about, but they still won't deliver. I don't know what they're waiting for. It's not like I live out the middle of nowhere -- I live in a suburb of Chicago. There are plenty of people here who would pay for the service. I've noticed that several of my neighbors have new antennae on their houses to get a 1-Mbit wireless internet connection from a local ISP. We're too far from the CO for DSL, and I guess they got tired of waiting for the cable monopoly to gear up.

    Anyway, my point is, don't bother calling the nice folks at AT&T "Broadband." It's a waste of your time. They don't care.

  85. FINALLY!!!! by southpolesammy · · Score: 3, Funny

    However me and the other penguins are probably going to get busted for swapping illegal Whale Song MP3's now....

    --
    Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
  86. And here I was joking at LWE by Shaleh · · Score: 1

    If we can get one of the scientists there to become a Debian developer, upload a package or two and perhaps host a mirror we will have a Debian devel on every continent!

  87. Re:Not Not necessarily by glueball · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The theories posed here are interesting. One fact has not been stated:

    Things you build on ice or tundra or whatever froze will sink below the ice surface. Re-adjustments because the ice is moving???? Not always.

    Look at the houses / buildings built on arctic areas. They are on stilts. That is to they can:

    1.) Insulate themselves from the ground. Not to make the inside warmer, but to keep the outside cooler. The heat from someting will cause the ground to melt.

    2.) They can jack up the stilts of the building/house after it does sink.

    A cable on ice will be, IMHO, thrashed. The ice moves, opens, and closes. Steel cables to protect it? No way. Not strong enough. And then put something heavy ( the copper pipe idea ) on the ice? The pipe will create heat on the ice just by being there. And then it will sink.

    This idea needs more thought.

    I was in Longyearbyen, Svalbard ( 4 hour flight north of Norway ) last week. I've seen it first hand. They were digging up a cable in the center of town last week because the cable was shifting. Putting this cable down was like building a road. Layers of big rocks, layers of small rocks, then paper, then the cable.

    This was in an area of tundra, not ice. The ice would be worse. And 1500 km? I'd hate to be the guy in the service truck on that account.

    Bill

  88. Hold the Phone... by perfects · · Score: 1

    Currently, researcher's communications rely upon older satellites that have drifted from their geostationary orbits into ones that are now at least partly visible from the pole

    Huh? If a geosynch satellite drifted out of alignment directly over the equator it would not appear to be stationary in the sky. How the heck do they keep their dish pointed at it?

    Something's fishy here, and it ain't penguin breath.

  89. Apocalypse Now solution by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    Send in Playboy Playmates via chopper/seaplane/whatever. The guys in Antarctica deserve better than a flat JPEG, no matter how fast it can be downloaded.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
    1. Re:Apocalypse Now solution by iabervon · · Score: 2

      The problem is that once the particular Playmates have been dropped in, you have to keep them around for 6 months. And I bet a Playmate who's been stuck at the south pole for a few months isn't going to be any fun at all.

  90. More info... by dargaud · · Score: 3, Informative
    I can provide more information on that project. As a former geek in Antarctica I was recently contacted by the company doing the bidding for this cable where they asked me for more information.

    I went to Dome C, now renamed Concordia, twice, in 1997 and 2000 to install some atmospheric physics experiments. I had to lay some cable there. Although it doesn't snow much (at most one mm / day), after 2 months the cables were buried and difficult to remove. We have to use expensive teflon coated cables so they won't break from the cold (-25~-50C in summer and down to -80C in winter, colder than South pole itself).

    They want to lay the cable between Concordia and South pole for various reasons: Concordia is a joint French/Italian project that started in 1997 and should be operational for winterover in 2004. The french have lots of experience with ground raids to resupply station from the coast (Dumont d'Urville); while the Americans always fly C-130 to the Pole.

    There has never been any land raid between Dome C and South pole, although a woman skied it alone in 1999 (pictures on my site as well). The flow of ice is non-existent at Dome C, for the simple reason that the several 'domes' are local ice summits from which the ice flows. They will certainly run into problems of stretching cables nearer to the pole though.

    But from Dome C to where ? Right now the communications are very limited: one email connection a day, expensive NOAA phone calls/fax, Irridium when they are not bankrupt... It would be impossible to lay another cable between DC and the coast for the simple reason that the ice accelerates it's flow and it gets full of crevasses... Maybe a dedicated antenna can reach a geostationary satellite, but that's not the way it works right now.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  91. Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Kansas that's filled with literalists [Fred Phelps] fundAmentalists [Topeka Capitol-Journal] who believe the earth is 6000 years old [CNN].

    Iowa has corn.

    1. Re:Actually by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      I've read that about forty percent of Americans believe in creationism rather than evolution; that statistic specifically excludes believers in theistically-guided evolution, too. I'm inclined to suspect that the vast majority of such Believers are in fly-over country. Interestingly, only 5% of scientists hold that belief - I would presume, too, that those scientists worked in fields such as chemistry or other domains entirely free of data relating to speciation or life.

  92. Why not just adapt RFC 1149 by jpmorgan · · Score: 2

    Instead of going to the expense of laying a few thousand miles of fibre, why not just adapt RFC 1149 to the local conditions? In addition to a huge cost-saving, it's a Linux friendly solution!

  93. Undersea cable might be better... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    ... I don't know how it would be laid, or how think the ice is at the pole - but it seems to be a solution.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Undersea cable might be better... by CaptainStormfield · · Score: 1

      Only problem: The south pole is ON A CONTINENT. You'd have to install an ocean first to run a undersea cable.

      --
      "The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program." - Niven
  94. Re:Two Towers & tube transit by Ioldanach · · Score: 2
    Plugging some numbers into a wireless link calculator, I find that two towers would have to be about 38 miles high to see each other above the radio horizon. (Don't forget you need to take into account the fresnel zone.) A more realistic height of 150' yields 38 towers at 54 km apart, 33 towers 62 km apart at 200', 26 towers 80 km apart at 100 meters high, or 8 towers 252 km apart at 1km high.

    Overall, I'd say putting a satellite constellation (say, 4 satellites so one's always visible) in non-equatorial orbit would be one plan, and a wire to a spot where at least 2 geostationary satellites are visible would be the other. Wireless links won't cut it here. Even if you could put a couple of the towers on specially picked mountains, you'd still have too much possibility of failure.

    On the other hand, and in an off the wall comment, if I were doing this, I'd include in the contract a requirement for an elliptical 1m wide, 1.25m high space running the length of the inside of the conduit. Its going to be a huge conduit already, might as well make it multi-purpose, right? Imagine being able to just hit the antarctic coast and taking a tube-shuttle from the coast to the station. Wheee!!!

  95. It figures... by ccg · · Score: 1

    Oh sure, send in the network guys to get eaten by Shoggoths.

  96. Fibre doesn't like cold..... by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1
    In countries like Canada, Finalnd or Russia, the business of laying fibre is seasonal. Fibre doesn't like to be laid when it is cold. It breaks when it is bent. Once laid, if kept reasonably still, it has no problems sitting in permafrost.

    Ok, if we spend a fortune heating the fibre as it goes in, we have the issue of ice sheet movement. People here have made various suggestions about laying loops, however it is that pulling around of a cold fibre that is going to lead to the core breaking.

    So, all you have to do is to heat the thing so that it never gets much below zero. This is quite easy over a hundred metres or two. Over 1600Km, um I don't know.

  97. Re:www.HotBabes.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is funny

  98. Wobbly orbits by bastion_xx · · Score: 1

    We used to get data squirts from the South Pole station (environmental data). The onboard controllers running some RTOS (forget what) had to be programmed to transmit on their yagi antennas at predetermined times to take advantage of said orbits. At our downlink, we had to reposition the dish to point where the satellite was supposed to be. Thank god for everyone using UTC times instead of local timezones.

    One of the rocket scientist guys explained that when the satellites lost the ability to station keep (or were purposefully pushed out of a geostationary orbit), you'd get a figure-8 orbit, hopefully North/South in direction. Some of the old GOES weather satellites did some major ass travelin'

    Submarine fiber cables exist in some pretty harsh environments, but I'd be curious to the effects of freeze/thaw near the more temperate zones. Anyway, satellite is out, else how would the South Poler's ever get good at Quake or Counterstrike????

  99. Antarctica is a *continent* by maggard · · Score: 2
    The Arctic ice cap is the one that is mostly floating, subs pass beneath, etc.

    Antarctica is primarily solid land with ice-shelves hanging off portions.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    1. Re:Antarctica is a *continent* by ericdano · · Score: 2

      details.......details.............

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
  100. Yes, but I refuse to point that out to those who by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    denser than said layer.

    Oh crap!

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  101. Transmitting Thru Ice -- Ice Optics by Bubblesculpter · · Score: 1
    Here's an offbeat idea, though I realize it is unrealistic.



    Fibre optics work by transmitting light thru a clear substance: glass.



    Why not transmit light thru the ice directly?

    Yeah, yeah, i know that the nature of ice would cause massive distortion and interference, and that the light probably wouldn't go very far.


    I'm just trying to suggest a wild concept, which might help other people think of more unique solutions to this problem.



    Who knows, solving this problem might end up with solutions to solve many other problems related to broadband connectivity or long distance spans.



    If the ice is 4 km thick, maybe some high power laser could strobe the signal from underground.



    Don't flame the idea, use it to spur your imagination!

    --
    www.Beyond7.com Insane modern art water sculpture.
  102. Wow, imagine... by thelinuxking · · Score: 1

    Just think about how long it would take the cable technician guy to get to your igloo if your internet goes down! I live in the same state as the cable company, and it takes at least a month for the guys to come to my house and fix the cable!

  103. Ice is see-through by gborland · · Score: 1

    Why do they need a cable at all? They should just shine the optic signals straight through the ice. :-)

  104. Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's one stretch of fibre I definately don't want the maintenance contract for! Come on guys, ICE MOVES!

  105. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I live on THIS continent and I CANT get broadband. Why are they getting it before me?

  106. Re:Not such a good idea? by El · · Score: 2
    If you're leaking energy from the cable, fibre, you've got a bad piece of fibre, and the signal isn't propagating from one end to the other. Any heat coming out of the cable would have to come from attenuation of the signal. This isn't copper, there's no resistance heating effect.

    As far as pressure melting the ice, that only happens if the ambient temperature is already near the freezing point. Otherwise, all the buildings at the south pole would already have sunk to the bottom of the ice! The buildings are exerting a lot more pressure per unit of surface area than a fibre is capable of withstanding without breaking.

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  107. YES YES YES by superpulpsicle · · Score: 0

    The economy is back. I can finally get a job somewhere.

  108. What the hell? by batquux · · Score: 2, Funny

    The south pole gets broadband before *I* do in Ohio????

  109. Who's doing it? by lostchicken · · Score: 2

    Global Crossing?

    --
    -twb
  110. NO radio allowed there! by blindauer · · Score: 1

    The South Pole research station has a bunch or radio telescopes. Like this

    Of course, the prevalent wireless standard is 802.11, and 802.11 networking (also being based on radio frequencies) isn't allowed at the station because it messes up the telescopes.

    I understand they have problems with people setting up rogue access points anyway. They track 'em down with this.

    --
    --Bradley
  111. My Quote... by Cheesewhiz · · Score: 1

    "Hey, scientist guys...I'll do it for $100 and a penguin for each of my kids!"

    That's an interesting idea -- perhaps the telecom guys will give the scientists a break for a share a share in the wealth of penguins available on the polar cap.

    --

    -----
    "Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."
  112. Re:remote power - here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "always" here.
    But then again, there's no way to stop it if it rolls from
    the sea plane.

  113. what about down under? by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Decent broadband should hit down under, not that far away from the south pole.

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  114. Not neccessarily by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    Just them in at the start of the transportation window, and bring them out before the window closes.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  115. building towers on the ice is easy. by vitus · · Score: 1

    Building towers on the continental ice is very simple thing - you take a heating element from
    electric teapot, put it on ice, power it on.
    Few minutes later you have a hole in the ice,
    filled by water

    You extract heating element, and quickly insert
    a steel rod instead. Few minutes later
    water would freeze and hold your steel rod much stronger than any concrete.

    And you may be reasonably sure that this ice wouldn't melt few centures more.

  116. Whew by EggplantMan · · Score: 1

    Now we have something to do besides freeze our asses off up here.

    --

    ?-|||-----x<*))))><
  117. Sheesh by Sunbaked · · Score: 1

    And I still can't get broadband at my home in Florida.. I mean is broadband on the southpole really necessary? What are they browsing joecartoon.com ?