Slashdot Mirror


Hole Drilled to Bottom of Earth's Crust

AtariAmarok writes "A new article is up on LiveScience about a hole drilled into the Earth's crust to explore the layers of our planet's substrate. The hole gets closer to the mantle than any other efforts that have gone before. The hole might reach the "Moho" (division between Earth's brittle outer crust and the hotter, softer mantle) within a few years." From the article: "The depth of the Moho varies. This latest effort, which drilled 4,644 feet (1,416 meters) below the ocean seafloor, appears to have been 1,000 feet off to the side of where it needed to be to pierce the Moho, according to one reading of seismic data used to map the crust's varying thickness."

422 comments

  1. Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good day, gentlemen...as you are no doubt aware, I have drilled a gigangtic hole straight through the Earth's crust. This hole will allow me to usher in a glorious new era of total world domination; for this reason, I have dubbed this latest caper "Operation Glory-Hole".

    You see, gentleman, the bottom of this hole is only a scant 1000 feet away from the firey liquid mantle of the Earth itself...when I detonate a small nuclear device at the bottom of this hole, Operation Glory-Hole will create a gigantic super-volcano, radically altering the Earth's climate and laying waste to civilization...that is, unless you pay me...
    ONE HUNDRED MILLION BILLION JILLION DOLLARS!!!

    /dramaticmusic

    Gentleman, you have my demands. Peace out.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dr. Evil is stealing my Moho baby!

    2. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line"

      Uhhh. Hi Dick. How ya doin'?'

      --
      Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    3. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by xs650 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Were you addressing Bush or Cheney?

    4. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by Feztaa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Powers: "Someone stole my moho!"

    5. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by nmb3000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      when I detonate a small nuclear device at the bottom of this hole, Operation Glory-Hole will create a gigantic super-volcano

      Duh, no it won't. It will make the Earth's core start to spin faster. Didn't you watch that documentery about the Earth's core?

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    6. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by Random832 · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    7. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by MutantHamster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure, everyone's all excited about drilling a hole now, but as soon as they accidentally drill into the Earth's hollow interior and drain the entire ocean, they'll be nothing but excuses.

      --
      My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
    8. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Um, didn't a dingo steal your baby, Mrs. Coward?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    9. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My fellow Americans, as I write this message, an elite US strike team is planning to counter this evil bunch of Glory-hole terrorist. Operation: Long Shaft will plug up this hole of evil by inserting a very large massive rod into the hole and pounding it in place until it goes all the way down thus neutralizing any threat Dr Evil might pose. While I can not reveal the details this plan due to national security, let me just tell that the world is safe and will continue to persevere even in these trying times.

      Thank you and God bless

      The President

    10. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line"
      Uhhh. Hi Dick. How ya doin'?'

      No no... it goes -
      "Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line"
      "Uhhh, Hi Al. Again, no, I don't want to be on your new TV network."

    11. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by ElyseMyers · · Score: 1

      That was one of the worst, yet funniest puns I've read on Slashdot, ever.

    12. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by DenDave · · Score: 1
      that is, unless you pay me...
      ONE HUNDRED MILLION BILLION JILLION DOLLARS!!!


      oh no and they've drilled into my moho.. umm.. mojo...
      --
      -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    13. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by drapmeyer · · Score: 1

      Oh no, the stole my Moho. Do I still make you horny, baby?

    14. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by displague · · Score: 1

      How could you do all that without mentioning "hot magma" or "lava" ...

      --
      Marques Johansson
    15. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      You forgot my fiery ball of mag-ma.

      (Pinky to lips)

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    16. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nah, we should be looking at the hair of the technicans working on this project.

      If they start sprouting lots of hair, big teeth and don't like the cold then we've got an 'INFERNO' situation.

      See Dr. Who episode -Inferno... :-)

      http://www.gallifreyone.com/episode.php?id=3d

      Oh and be on the look out for green slime, that's a dead giveaway.

      To be safe, fire any professors called Eric.
      Trust me. I've seen the future. ;-))

    17. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can only imagine the earth deflating like a balloon losing it's air and hurltling through space.

    18. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by intangible · · Score: 1

      From the wikipedia page:

      Later came Marshall Gardner (distinct from science writer Martin Gardner) who wrote A Journey to the Earth's Interior in 1913 and then an expanded edition in 1920. He placed a interior sun in the hollow earth. He even built a working model of the hollow earth and patented it (#1096102).

      So if Earth had turned out to be hollow, would we all have to pay licensing fees to use it?

    19. Re:Mr President, Dr. Evil is on the line... by Lorem_Ipsum · · Score: 1

      No, no, it's:

      "Hi Karl, what are we doing today?"

      "The same thing we do every day, Pinky. We try to take over the world."

      --
      --- Void where prohibited. Your mileage may vary. ---
  2. dr. evil strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    liquid hot MAGMA!!!!!!!!

  3. Obl Friends quote: by IainMH · · Score: 3, Funny


    Check this baby out, dug me a hole!

    --Joey Tribbiani

    1. Re:Obl Friends quote: by Mancat · · Score: 0

      Excellent hole, Joe.

      --Chandler Bing

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    2. Re:Obl Friends quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      when did quotes from friends become obligatory? what site is this?

  4. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one, welcome our moleman overlords.

    1. Re:Yay! by DrLZRDMN · · Score: 5, Funny

      shouldn't that be underlords?

    2. Re:Yay! by steeef · · Score: 2, Funny

      Behold, the Underminer! I'm always beneath you, but nothing is beneath me! I hereby declare war on peace and happiness! Soon, all will tremble before me!

    3. Re:Yay! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1



      I am the Underminer! I am always beneath you, but NOTHING is beneath me!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Yay! by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Who wants a sno-cone?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    5. Re:Yay! by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      I was saying boo-urns.

  5. The More Interesting Story by Steven+Edwards · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is the link at the bottom which talks about the idea of using a nuke to drop a probe to the earths core.

    --
    Why clone Unix when I can clone Windows instead. http://www.reactos.org
    1. Re:The More Interesting Story by bcmm · · Score: 1

      OT, but your sig is the funniest thing I've seen in a while...

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    2. Re:The More Interesting Story by Steven+Edwards · · Score: 1

      Making a Unix clone has been done enough times before. Don't get me wrong, I run Linux and work for a company that makes Linux Software but I think the market needs a free Windows replacement.

      --
      Why clone Unix when I can clone Windows instead. http://www.reactos.org
    3. Re:The More Interesting Story by bcmm · · Score: 1

      No offence meant. It's just quite funny. I know there are a lot of unix clones. I wonder what percentage of OSs are at least partly a unix clone (not counting NT's use of BSD network code).

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    4. Re:The More Interesting Story by 51mon · · Score: 1

      These days nearly every big general purpose OS implements some or all of the Unix or Posix APIs as it makes it possible to port software.

      Not sure that makes them Unix clones, but these days it gets them certified if they want it.

      Now back to our regularly scheduled offtopic posts.

  6. is it wise? by Phil246 · · Score: 1

    im unsure about the wisdom of opening up a hole to the mantle.
    correct me if im wrong but isnt the mantle under some pressure, and opening a hole will relieve that pressure and cause a large amount of it to flow out?

    1. Re:is it wise? by FireballX301 · · Score: 1

      You'd probably kill the people/machinery going down there, if the mantle is as overpressured as you say. But there wouldn't be a massive eruption, the seawater would quickly cool the mantle into a new part of the crust, eliminating the hole.

      However, its more than likely it won't flow out explosively.

    2. Re:is it wise? by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's happening all the time on the sea floor, where the plates are slowly separating.

      A bunch of lava will squish out, immediatly cool, and plug the hole, and they'll have to start all over again.

      Kind of like Cool Hand Luke.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:is it wise? by viper432 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Like a volcano?

    4. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, this is exactly what will happen. Just think of it like pricking a hole in a balloon, next thing you know we are 'ppttthhhhhhhhhh' on our way to Jupiter.

    5. Re:is it wise? by Daedalus_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, we're screwed now.

      Start working on your lava-boats everyone....

    6. Re:is it wise? by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      Well considering that this is at the bottom of the ocean, the incoming pressure on the hole would be substantial.

      Also I think the size of this hole compared to the total surface area of the earth would make such a concern relatively insignificant.

    7. Re:is it wise? by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      and opening a hole will relieve that pressure and cause a large amount of it to flow out?

      Why, yes, that can happen. Mind you, "large" is only on the human scale, and this is hardly an unusual circumstance.

      What is essetnially (but not actually) mantle-juice flows out onto the crust on a somewhat irregular basis. I'm sure you've heard of it, it's quite specatcular when molten rock et al flow out.

      As for a "large ammount" -- us drilling into the mantle is like us sticking a very large straw into the ocean. Sure, the water down at the bottom is under pressure, and it will shoot up the straw if we let it. But the ocean certainly isn't going anywhere.

    8. Re:is it wise? by SpaceyWilly · · Score: 1

      aren't volcanoes holes in the earth's crust where the mantle pokes through and squirts out occasionally?

    9. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shite! I'm sure they never thought of that! Quick! Forward your concerns to the crew immediately or we are doomed!

    10. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, and all that foam and suds getting everywhere .. wait .. uh, we are talking about the car wash scene, right?

    11. Re:is it wise? by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1

      Could this be done to relieve pressure at active volcanos? That would be seriously cool (or hot, depending on your perspective!) if it was was possible to drill down into a volcano base and just siphon off the pressure. I could see several problems with this though as the liquid magma would probably cool down too much on its journey to the surface and probably block your tunnel. Also it would require loads of pipes to siphon any serious ammount. In theory though...

    12. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for a "large ammount" -- us drilling into the mantle is like us sticking a very large straw into the ocean.

      Relatively speaking, compared to the mass and volume of the earth it is a very very very tiny straw..

      What would the relative diameter be in, say, a canteloupe?

    13. Re:is it wise? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 0
      I think the size of this hole compared to the total surface area of the earth...
      Yeah, like the way sticking a pin in a balloon has little effect because the pinprick is so insignificant compared to the rest of the balloon.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    14. Re:is it wise? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, it's unfortunate that the earth is like a big balloon. Oh wait a minute, it's not. Never mind.

    15. Re:is it wise? by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      If the balloon was under similar pressure then you might have a point. But it's not. The pressure inside the balloon is much greater than the pressure outside the balloon, so when you prick it, the pressure equalizes, causing the balloon to pop. Now if you want to get fancy, slap a cross of scotch tape over part of the balloon, then poke a needle through that. The balloon won't pop, it'll just slowly leak air.

      Also keep in mind the earth's crust is significantly more robust and thick than the skin of your average balloon.

      Wait...low user number...dumbass comment. Ack, I missed the sarcasm alert! My bad.

    16. Re:is it wise? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      > us drilling into the mantle is like us sticking a
      > very large straw into the ocean.

      More like a pipette or a hypodermic needle.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    17. Re:is it wise? by GeoGreg · · Score: 2, Informative

      The mantle is under pressure because of the rock piled on top of it. It is not, as is sometimes believed, molten. And it won't goosh out like champagne when the cork is popped. Volcanoes do sometimes behave this way, but that's because they are isolated pockets of molten, gas-infused rock. When the confining pressure is removed, they do in fact goosh out lava like champagne. But that's a very different story.

    18. Re:is it wise? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of his eating all the eggs and then puking, I guess what we have here is a failure to communicate.

      Some men you just cant reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it.

      Well, he gets it.

      I don't like it any more than you men.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    19. Re:is it wise? by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      {snicker}

    20. Re:is it wise? by perspicaciously · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The pressure inside the balloon is much greater than the pressure outside the balloon

      The pressure outside the balloon is the same as the pressure inside the balloon. The reason balloons expand when you fill them with air is so that they equalize the pressures. Since the balloon is made of an elastic material without a rigid structure, maintaining equal pressures on either side of the membrane is the configuration that requires the least energy. As the balloon becomes really inflated, the latex can't stretch easily, and it does compress the air inside--but not much, just 5 or 6 mm of mercury.

      when you prick it, the pressure equalizes, causing the balloon to pop

      The "pop" isn't really related to the pressure equalizing. The latex is under high hoop and axial stress, and when it gets pricked, the hole that forms breaks lines of stress and the latex gets pulled away from the hole. This tears the latex, very rapidly--considerably faster than the speed of sound. The ends of the latex are under so much stress that they contract as fast as the tears occur, and create a small shockwave/sonic boom. When put scotch tape on the balloon where you prick it (before pricking it, of course), the strain around the hole isn't enough to start the tears, since that also requires tearing the scotch tape (or tearing away from it).

      However, you're very right that we can't compare this to the earth, because the crust of the earth certainly isn't under high uniform elastic tension attempting to maintain internal and external pressures.

    21. Re:is it wise? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Yeah, we're screwed now. Start working on your lava-boats everyone....

      People? Boats? Endless seas of lava? Oh, great. If one person in Hollywood reads that, we're in trouble.

      "Now in theaters: The sequel to smash hit Waterworld: Fireworld!"

    22. Re:is it wise? by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Huh, so you're telling me that an automobile tire with 30psi of pressure inside it (inflated) has equal air pressure inside as the ambient atmosphere outside the tire?

      I guess I'll just deflate my tires and drive around on your theory then.

    23. Re:is it wise? by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Way to totally miss the point.

      The poster was describing how the earth is not like a balloon and that you cannot compare them.

      Then, without any apparent thought or reasoning, you try and compare a balloon and a tyre.

      Note that he mentioned that there was a small amount of pressure in the balloon. This is because balloons are stretchy - they stretch quite easily when inflated.

      Tyres are a lot less stretchy, being:
      (a) A hell of a lot thicker than your average balloon.
      (b) bound and reinforced internally with plies to keep the whole thing from blowing up like .... a balloon.

      Tyres are a lot closer to a rigid disc than a balloon - they will (generally) only inflate to a certain volume. After that, the air pressure in a tyre rises substantially, allowing you to suspend your 1500kg car on a cushion of air trapped in the tyre.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    24. Re:is it wise? by jrauch · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wish I had some mod points, I think I just learned more about balloons than I ever thought possible

    25. Re:is it wise? by smithmc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, this is exactly what will happen. Just think of it like pricking a hole in a balloon, next thing you know we are 'ppttthhhhhhhhhh' on our way to Jupiter.

      That's fine, as long as we don't try to land on Europa.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    26. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erhem!

      Hollyweird has already started doing crackpot movies like this.

      The Core!

      And just last week on SCIFI "Deep Core" Will wheaton was part of the cast. The movie sucked badly, Think B movie.

      So I'm guessing Fireworld with Kevin Costner is already being filmed *Shudder*

    27. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I liked Waterworld you insensitive clod!

    28. Re:is it wise? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Huh? Certainly you don't think that if you stick a straw down to the bottom of the ocean, that water will flow UP it, higher than the surface of the water up above...do you?


      If you do, then you should review some basic physics concepts. The pressure differential that exists between the water on top of the ocean and at the bottom would also exist between the bottom of the pipe and the top. So you would have exactly the same level of water inside your straw, as you would outside. Just like in a bottle of Coke or something. Putting one end of the straw at the bottom of the bottle doesn't cause the soda to come shooting out the other end towards your face (although it would be funny if it did, wouldn't it?).


      The only exception is if you were to lower the 'straw' down while filled with air (by keeping the top closed and equalizing the pressure against the water using compressed air) and then when you got down to the desired depth, releasing the cap on top -- this would cause water to rush in the bottom to equalize the fluid levels between the inside and outside of the pipe. If the differential is big enough it may in fact be moving quickly enough to 'overshoot' the water level of the ocean and come out the top of the pipe, but this is temporary only -- the steady state solution is with both fluid levels equal.


      If you don't believe me, go get a clear straw and a glass of water and come back when you've tried it.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    29. Re:is it wise? by Planesdragon · · Score: 0, Troll

      The only exception is...

      Yes, braniac.

      And when we drill all the way down to the mantle, it's more likely that we'll have a hole that itself is pressurized (and thus able to, y'know, fit drilling equipment) than a hole that fills up with rock and dirt as we drill down.

    30. Re:is it wise? by rapidweather · · Score: 1
      Considering the local gas prices, they need to be drilling for black gold, texas tea.


      Come 'n listen to my story 'bout a man named Jed

      Poor Mountaineer barely kept his family fed

      An' then one day, he was shootin' at some food,

      An' up thru the ground came a bubblin' crude.

      Oil that is! Black gold! Texas tea!


      Complete text here.

    31. Re:is it wise? by UlfGabe · · Score: 1

      WTF is a tyre?

      WHO the fuck is tyre?

      --
      Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
    32. Re:is it wise? by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Way to skim over my post and the grandparent's post and miss what I was commenting on previously. My last post was in repsonse to the statement "The pressure outside the balloon is the same as the pressure inside the balloon". I don't think that's true if the balloon wants to pop when you stab it with something. An uninflated balloon is the only kind with equal pressure inside and out.

    33. Re:is it wise? by Austenite · · Score: 1
      Your lecturer read the same textbook as mine - and insisted that the pressure inside the balloon is exactly the same as the pressure outside.

      He would not be convinced that the pressure inside the balloon is equal to the pressure inside plus the pressure required to elastically deform the latex, and that the energy released when a balloon was popped was a demonstration of this stored energy.

      At least you have the decency to contradict yourself:

      "The pressure outside the balloon is the same as the pressure inside the balloon. [...] it does compress the air inside--but not much, just 5 or 6 mm of mercury"
      :)
      --
      "In person, WAP'ed up and making your life a misery!" BOFH, 2003
    34. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. Place the balloon in a vacuum, and it will pop, because outside air pressure no longer keeps it contained.

      The only thing keeping it from exploding is the equalised air pressure outside of it.

    35. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, and you are now qualified to be a clown. Congratulations! And to think that you thought you weren't going to earn any certifications today.

    36. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybey I'm missing something here but...

      1) Take 1 balloon and 1 manometer.

      2) Note the initial reading of the unconnected manometer - call it X.

      3) Now inflate your balloon and attach the manometer to it. Note the reading - Call it Y.

      If your assertion is true then X should be equal to Y. However, real life experience suggests X Y.

      Surely the elasticity of the balloon skin is compressing the gas contained within.

    37. Re:is it wise? by iBod · · Score: 1

      Why then, if I inflate a balloon do I need to tie the end to prevent the gas escaping?

      If your theory of balloons is correct, the pressures inside and outside of the skin are equivalent and therefore no gas would flow into or out of the ballon.

      Is there something wrong with this picture?

    38. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The important thing is to drill the hole
      on the upper side of the earth because
      the lava is to heavy to flow out on this side.

      But God help us if they drill a hole on the
      lower side, this may empty the earth and
      leave us with a fragile shell....

    39. Re:is it wise? by julesh · · Score: 1

      "Now in theaters: The sequel to smash hit Waterworld: Fireworld!"

      Hey! They could follow it up with Windworld. And, becuse they need to milk the franchise one last time to make up for all the money the first one lost, they would finish with... Earthworld.

      Hmmm.

    40. Re:is it wise? by perspicaciously · · Score: 1

      Okay, apparently my post was really not clear enough. Balloons, at least flexible elastic balloons (not talking about tires!), equalize the pressure inside and outside the latex. They don't completely do this--expanding stretches the latex, imparts potential energy to it, and under tension it pressurizes the air inside the balloon. But the extent to which it does this is fairly minimal--a fully inflated balloon, one that is inflated to the point where it will almost pop on its own, has an internal pressure about 1.007 times external pressure.

      People tend to have the impression that the air inside a balloon is very pressurized, because it seems like it is. We don't feel the pressure of air, but we do feel the pressure inside a balloon when we try to squeeze it. However, as a demonstration, if we were able to blow up a balloon and "freeze" the latex in place, so that it held its shape and no longer had tension in it, we could poke holes in it and it wouldn't pop, and only a small amount of air would escape through those holes--perhaps half a percent of the air inside--before the pressures inside and outside are precisely equal. With differences that small, it should become clear why it's frequently assumed that the pressures inside and outside are equal. The relevant phenomenon is finding and maintaining equilibrium, and the only reason that air rushes out when you untie a filled balloon is because the elasticity of the latex continues to pull the balloon to a smaller shape, maintaining a small pressure gradient until the balloon is entirely deflated.

      I'm really tired of typing balloon. You know it has two 'l's AND two 'o's?

    41. Re:is it wise? by Tassach · · Score: 1
      Why then, if I inflate a balloon do I need to tie the end to prevent the gas escaping?
      Because the elastic rubber balloon consticts and squeezes the air out.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    42. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, this is America. By the time we load our fat asses into our fat ass cars, the cars weigh a lot more than 1500kg, thank you very much.

    43. Re:is it wise? by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Well either it is pressurized or it is not. Obviously there is a slightly larger pressure. Assuming it doesn't exist just because it is a small number is not acceptable, because it leads to a huge qualitative difference- a balloon that doesn't deflate when untied. Maybe if you wanted to neglect the air friction as you pull the balloon or the electrostatic charge as you rub it I'd let you get away with it, but this is just sloppy thinking! :)

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    44. Re:is it wise? by iBod · · Score: 1

      "People tend to have the impression that the air inside a balloon is very pressurized..."

      I didn't say that the gas inside a balloon was 'very' pressurized, but clearly the pressure inside the skin is greater (to some degree) than that outside due to the compression applied by the deformed elastic skin trying to return to its original shape.

      But you're right in theory. Consider a glass blower making a vase. The molten glass is a sort of 'one-way' balloon. You can blow it up, but because the 'skin' has no elasticity, it deforms to fit the volume of air blown in, and then stays put. The residual air pressure in the vase would, for practical purposes, be the same as outside.

      I concur that "balloon" is extremely tiresome to type repeatedly and swear engage in no more of this balloonery.

    45. Re:is it wise? by Kwantus · · Score: 1

      ...and then one day he was strummin' on his tongue
      and soon after that came the money by the ton!

    46. Re:is it wise? by Kwantus · · Score: 1

      Or you could think of a soap-film bubble, with essentially zero elasticity, just a bit of tension. Very small pressure difference, but still a difference. (But, somewhat curiously, the bigger the bubble the less the difference.)

    47. Re:is it wise? by Kwantus · · Score: 1

      Never heard of a salt fountain? =)

    48. Re:is it wise? by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      A simple test to see if GP is right:

      - Try blowing up a balloon
      - Try blowing the same volume of air into a glass bottle.

      If you could, the pressure inside the glass would be *much* higher. The balloon has *very little* pressure. Yes, a little more, but not much.

      Check out high-speed pictures of balloons popping for further proof. The balloon shards don't fly outward.

      -MrLogic

    49. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      reread parent post

    50. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to prove that you're a dick.

      Here's the bottom line:

      balloons and tires are not the same thing

      Dumbass.

    51. Re:is it wise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm really tired of typing balloon. You know it has two 'l's AND two 'o's?

      Not if you spell it "tire" :o)

    52. Re:is it wise? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
      Actually no, I hadn't. But I looked it up, and while it does not invalidate my earlier point, it is a rather interesting phenomenon.


      salt fountain:
      A hypothesized perpetual fountain where a long, narrow heat-conducting pipe inserted vertically through a region of ocean where warm, salty water overlies colder, fresher (and therefore denser) water. Water pumped upwards through the pipe would reach the same temperature as the surroundings at the same level (by conduction of heat through the wall of the pipe), while it remained fresher and therefore lighter. A fountain started thusly (in either direction) will continue to flow so long as there is a vertical gradient of salinity to supply potential energy. The idea was first advanced by Stommel etal. (1956) and is discussed in Turner (1973).
      from http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/paleo/ocean/node35.h tml


      You'd have to get the water from the bottom of the ocean flowing through the pipe, first of all, and then the velocity would end up being dependent on the heat transfer through the pipe, the salinity, and the geometry. I'm not sure how strong it'd be, but you might be able to use this to keep the flow going, although not to start it.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    53. Re:is it wise? by Austenite · · Score: 1

      Your example of blowing the air into a rigid container of smaller size is non-sensical...

      Your point about the high speed pictures confirms that the grandparent was correct about the "bang" being produced by the latex and not the expanding air. I was wrong about this.

      There's a very nice explanation of the physics here:
      http://www.balloonhq.com/faq/howpop.html#wh ybang

      However, the air *is* compressed inside the balloon. By exactly the amount required to strain the latex. At least you've had the decency to say so, as well! :)

      --
      "In person, WAP'ed up and making your life a misery!" BOFH, 2003
  7. How many... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So how many turns does it take to get to the center of the Earth? *crunch*

    1. Re:How many... by Fussen · · Score: 0, Troll

      So how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? *crunch*

  8. Grrrreat. Let's poke a big hole in the planet. by itomato · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's no tampon made than could contain the leak that would create.

    Bad Scientists! Bad!

  9. Terraform: Construct Thermal Borehole by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 4, Funny
    +6 minerals
    +6 energy

    WARNING: Significant negative ecological impact

    1. Re:Terraform: Construct Thermal Borehole by syrinx · · Score: 2, Funny

      damn mindworms.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    2. Re:Terraform: Construct Thermal Borehole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need Advanced Ecological Engineering to get 3+ minerals from a single tile, though. Until then, you're stuck at 2.

    3. Re:Terraform: Construct Thermal Borehole by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny, I thought of a completely different game.

      Yay! We've got moho mines now! I can start working on my BB and turn off the metal makers.

    4. Re:Terraform: Construct Thermal Borehole by Atmchicago · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily -- if you build "The Weather Paradigm" secret project then it doesn't matter -- you get both the ability to build the moho mines and the ability to get energy out of them.

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    5. Re:Terraform: Construct Thermal Borehole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BB? Bwahahaha, when you start getting moho mines you start working on the fusions for your Vulcan!

    6. Re:Terraform: Construct Thermal Borehole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume this is a game reference... sorry that I missed it. What game?

    7. Re:Terraform: Construct Thermal Borehole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure the vulcan is more spectacular, but there's nothing like a forward battery of Berthas systematically dismantling your enemy's base. Besides, once you get veteran for the whole battery you can start commander sniping.

      Damn it's been too long since I've played that game.

    8. Re:Terraform: Construct Thermal Borehole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so. TWP only lets you build 'em. You'll still only get 2 mineral + 2 energy out of it, unless you either have the techs that remove the 2 limit, or if there is a special resource in that square.

    9. Re:Terraform: Construct Thermal Borehole by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  10. Great by elid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dante would be proud

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

      Amen brother. Actually, I'm not sure Dante wrote about daemons underneath - wasn't that a Viking belief? As far as i know, the Romans held that the gods lived up on the mountain tops.

    2. Re:Great by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Not likely. They missed Hell by a 1000 feet...

  11. Call up Galactus by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "There's no tampon made than could contain the leak that would create."

    If his wife answers, ask to borrow one of hers.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  12. Re:First they pearce the crust... by djdavetrouble · · Score: 5, Funny

    And then you come to the caramel lower mantle, then the delicious chocolate core.

    --
    music lover since 1969
  13. Typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The depth*

  14. China by Rylz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pfft. I nearly made it from my sandbox to China with nothing but buckets back in my preschool days!

    --
    Sometimes you've gotta roll the hard six.
    1. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft. I nearly made it from my sandbox to China with nothing but buckets back in my preschool days!

      Let me guess, you are Chinese, right?

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

      No, he only nearly made it. That means he was in one of the bordering countries. Perhaps Soviet Russia.

    3. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he only nearly made it. That means he was in one of the bordering countries. Perhaps Soviet Russia.

      In Soviet Russie, sandbox digs YOU!

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

      ...in the rest of the world, no longer even remotely funny, that meme.

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

      Oh you youngins. Back in my day, we didn't even have buckets, we had to use our hands. And we considered ourselves lucky to have hands. And a sandbox? Forget about it! I had to walk 15 miles, in the snow, uphill, to get to the nearest beach and dig in that sand!

  15. Would it work? by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > bottom of this hole is only a scant 1000 feet
    > away from the firey liquid mantle of the Earth
    > itself...when I detonate a small nuclear device
    > at the bottom of this hole, Operation Glory-Hole
    > will create a gigantic super-volcano

    Would any geologists care to comment whether it is possible to create an artificial island this way?

    1. Re:Would it work? by dalutong · · Score: 3, Informative

      well -- i don't know if that would really be "artificial," then, since that is how many islands are formed, especially along convergent plate boundries. it is exactly as happens it happens with "hot spots." the issue would be making the hole large enough and keeping the hole open, since it would fill up pretty quickly and just make a little mountain under the sea.

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    2. Re:Would it work? by osmic234 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unlikely. The Mohorovicic (Moho) discontinuity can be described in a few different ways - either where seismic veolocities have a marked discontinuity, or where a noticable chemical/mineralogical change occurs (can't remember what it is, I'm a geophysicist, not a geologist). What it's not is a boundary between a nice solid crust floating on top of "firey liquid mantle". In fact more accurate terms are lithosphere and asthenosphere, rather than crust and mantle, which basically differentiate between rigid, colder material, and warmer, more ductile rock. The top of the mantle is still solid, but becomes increasingly ductile with depth. Various minerals reach melting point as you go down towards the Core-Mantle Boundary, but basically I think you have to get to the outer core before it's all liquid (mostly iron). In terms of energies, the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated was about 55-60 megatonnes (depending on who you ask), in 1961 by the USSR. The energy released by the great 1960 Chilean earthquake (the largest recorded in the last 100 years) was equivalent approximately to a 2000 Mt bomb. So, setting off a nuke at the moho might temporarily create a small spherical cavity which would probably collapse in on itself, and maybe create some melt, but it's doubtful it would come gushing to the surface as a raging plume of "liquid hot magma". Besides, there have been plenty of underground nuclear tests, and none of those have resulted in a humungous volcano. As yet. The USGS site at http://www.usgs.gov/ is probably a good place to find out more.

    3. Re:Would it work? by RicktheBrick · · Score: 0

      I have read that a enormous explosion occurred in the United States at around 620,000 years ago. Said exposion nearly caused the extinction of the human race. So if we dug 1,000 holes and exploded say 10,000 nuclear weapon simultaneously would that cause enough relieve of pressure to at least delay another such explosion or completly eliminate it. That is if some scientist determined that another one was going to occur in the near future.

    4. Re:Would it work? by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      good thing we don't have anything like global warming to worry about, with as much heat as that would release...

    5. Re:Would it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      no, the good thing is that dumb assess don't have control of our nukes.

      oh wait.... they do

      *shudders*

    6. Re:Would it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget the Bomb,

      Once the Mantle is pierced, the insides of the Eart will come gushing out like air out of a balloon. The Inner Earth has been packed tight for so many years that the release of pressure will cause deflation and a large PFFFFFPPPFPFFFFFSSSSTTTTTT! sound.

    7. Re:Would it work? by Kymermosst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IANQAG (I am not quite a geologist), but I am just finishing up my minor in Geology, and considering it as a second major.

      Unlikely. The Mohorovicic (Moho) discontinuity can be described in a few different ways - either where seismic veolocities have a marked discontinuity, or where a noticable chemical/mineralogical change occurs (can't remember what it is, I'm a geophysicist, not a geologist).

      Seismic discontinuity.

      Anyway, regarding the grandparent... in theory, the only thing keeping the mantle from melting is pressure (phase diagrams are easy to find). When you drill down, if you don't maintain pressure in the well, (again, in theory) you might be able to relieve the pressure on mantle rock and cause it to melt. Of course, you'd need a really big hole for the resulting magma to come up before it plugs itself like a puncture wound.

      Making an artificial volcano is a highly unlikely thing to accomplish, either on accident or on purpose.

      I've read one theory about the yellowstone hotspot that is related to this. David Alt and Donald Hyndman believe (found in _Roadside Geology of Idaho_) that a meteorite struck the pacific northwest and the impact crater relieved pressure on the mantle, allowing the magma to well up. This, of course, relieved pressure below and caused further upwelling. Each eruption of what is now the Yellowstone hot spot keeps the cycle going, they claim.

      I don't think it's a very probable explanation, and it doesn't seem to be easily verifiable or falsifiable, since the original evidence would have been destroyed by the volcanic eruptions.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    8. Re:Would it work? by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Seismic discontinuity.

      I didn't mean to exclude the theoretical mineralogical/chemical change, but the Moho is definitely a seismic discontinuity.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    9. Re:Would it work? by Auriam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not necessarily. If it indeed happened, there should be an iridium layer at the geologic layer corresponding to the date they propose for this mysterious impact. If they find one, and it predates all known Yellowstone eruptions, is below all Yellowstone-originated ash layers, and gets thicker toward the suspected impact zone, those would be strong evidence...

    10. Re:Would it work? by Kymermosst · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not necessarily. If it indeed happened, there should be an iridium layer at the geologic layer corresponding to the date they propose for this mysterious impact. If they find one, and it predates all known Yellowstone eruptions, is below all Yellowstone-originated ash layers, and gets thicker toward the suspected impact zone, those would be strong evidence...

      True, but depending on the size and composition of the meteorite, that layer could be *extremely* thin.

      Maybe I'll go ahead and finish that second major and go to grad school. I could look for an iridium layer and write up a thesis.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    11. Re:Would it work? by ThaReetLad · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, that's the yellowstone supervolcano. Its has errupted roughly every 620,000 years, and the last one was 640,000 years ago, and last time it errupted it poured out roughly 8000 times as much ash as Mount St. Helens did in the 1980 erruption. It is estimated that if it goes again in the near future it would cover most of the US within 1000 miles of yellowstone in a thick layer of ash, killing more that 20 million Americans. It would also cause a global temperature drop of up to 10 degees C causing a new mini ice age for as long as 10 years during which time much of the worlds population would simply starve to death. I suspect we would be lucky to see as few as 1 Billion fatalities worldwide, together with the massive social and political fallout that would bring.

      The problem is that no one could know whether attempting to cause a small erruption now would in fact just trigger the real thing, because vulcanology is not an exact science, and we simply don't know enough to do such a thing.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    12. Re:Would it work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd drill Mahoro any time

    13. Re:Would it work? by osmic234 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The seismic (geophysical) moho is the most common definition (and the one I would use most regularly), but the petrological moho is a valid description as well. I'm informed that it's the

      "transition from crustal plagioclase bearing rocks to plagioclase-free olivine and pyroxene rocks".

      When you think about it the seismic discontinuity has to be attibutable to some actual physical change in the earth.

      I was once on a geological field trip to Cyprus, which has been upthrust a lot, to the point where some old moho is visible at the surface. Having heard this I was hoping for a big outcrop with a nice clear line running through it, so I could stand with a foot on either side of the moho for a picture. Unfortunately it didn't quite look like that.

      Not being a geologist I grabbed a few nice looking pieces of rock to take home for paper weights. Alas the cleaning staff at the hotel threw these out, thus stealing my moho. Ah well.

    14. Re:Would it work? by RailRide · · Score: 1
      That ons was Toba in Sumatra, Indonesia, and the timeframe was about 74,000 years ago.

      And while Googling Toba to verify it's location, I come across this little gem on Yahoo News.

      Seems it lies on the same faultline that caused the last two big quakes out by Indonesia, and well, some are warning that if the fault continues to break toward the south in successive earthquakes, Toba could concievably get cracked open.

      (although IMO, being that nobody seems to know the eruption interval for Toba, 74,000 years could very well be insufficient time to pressurize it enough to do much of anything even if the fault were to break aross it)

      ---PCJ

    15. Re:Would it work? by Axiom_1 · · Score: 1

      well -- i don't know if that would really be "artificial," then, since that is how many islands are formed

      Hmm, many islands are formed by Dr Evil detonating nuclear bombs at the bottom of deep holes? Maybe I should have taken a geology course - it sounds more interesting than I expected!

    16. Re:Would it work? by ihuntrocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A good source of information on the Yellowstone hot spot can be found in Christiansen's USGS professional paper, available at http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/prof-paper/pp729g/

      This paper was refered to me by Dr. Jacob Lowenstern, senior researcher at the YVO. I am currently doing vulcanism research and thought I'd throw this out here.

      As far as creating an artificial volcano, in my opinion, I'd chalk that up as a no. Sorry guys.

      --
      Randimal: AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG
  16. Now we know who is causing those earthquakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have found the persons reponsible for Sumatra earthquakes.

  17. On the drill head... by CrackedButter · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...it says "Bruce Willis woz here".

  18. Dickhole by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Troll

    Why waste all that time and money drilling a new hole, when they could just use the one that leads straight to hell, AKA Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location" bunker? Just look under the rock he crawled out from.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Dickhole by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      Why waste all that time and money drilling a new hole, when they could just use the one that leads straight to hell, AKA Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location" bunker? Just look under the rock he crawled out from.

      They are building a highway. Me thinks they can't get there fast enough. ;)

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  19. Screw black-holes and grey goo... by Pinkoir · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...this Dr. Evil hole is the greatest threat that mad-science presents to us.

    What happens if when they finally penetrate the crust the whole planet pops like a balloon?

    LIKE A BALLOON!!

    Think of all that crazy magma spewing out all over the place and our beloved globe zooming randomly all over the solar system before finally falling flacid and empty to the floor somewhere near Mars.

    When will these insane "geologists" learn not to poke holes in our Mother Earth.

    -Pinkoir

    1. Re:Screw black-holes and grey goo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw c'mon, the noise would be really funny...

      Can we hear it just the once, can we, can we?

    2. Re:Screw black-holes and grey goo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey talk for yourself. Scientist never poked any hole in my Mother, besides some crazy engineer called Father. But that is different story.

  20. Soon We'll reach the underground Dero kingdom! by Nova+Express · · Score: 2, Funny
    Beware! Soon we'll drill down into the lair of the evil Dero (i.e., "Detrimental Robots"), who have been beaming their alien mind control rays at humanity throughout recorded history! Richard Shaver and Ray Palmer have revealed all! Stop while there's still time!

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  21. Re:is it wise? HAWAII!! by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

    Hwo do you think we got Hawaii?

    I am just hoping they drill where the white beaches will be nice a warm, in few million years.

  22. What are they thinking!?! by VivianC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Didn't the Doctor already save us fom this madness back in the 1970's? Doesn't anyone remember what a disaster it was?

    --
    Viv

    Gmail invites for ip
    1. Re:What are they thinking!?! by mwillson · · Score: 1

      Professor Challenger was there first.

      See "When the World Screamed" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

    2. Re:What are they thinking!?! by Feneric · · Score: 1

      Yup. He saved us, but failed to save the unfortunates on the parallel Earth...

      Actually, thinking back, didn't Inferno supposed to have taken place in around our current time period?

    3. Re:What are they thinking!?! by /dev/zero · · Score: 1

      Just what I was thinking. Here is more info...

      --

      He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
      -- J.R.R. Tolkien
    4. Re:What are they thinking!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be noted that in the 26 years the original Doctor Who series was on the air, this is the ONLY episode where there's travel to a parallel universe.

      In Star Trek you can't even sneeze without falling into an alternative reality.

    5. Re:What are they thinking!?! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Unless your specifically keeping seperate 'mirror' or 'alternate history' type universes seperate from all 'alternate' universes, or I've forgotten something said on the show (been a few years) I would think the handfull of episode that occured in e-space would count to some degree. He even picked up Adric and left Romanadvoratrelundar(Romana) there with K-9 mkI

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  23. Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by geomon · · Score: 5, Informative

    EOS covered this recent work just recently. The problem with offset drilling is that it does not provide the same informatio as a continuous core. These cores are obtained from 'windows' in previous flows and there is a problem with correlation between boreholes when horizons are not sampled widely. This complicates the historical interpreation and genesis of the oceanic crust.

    The demand for advanced drilling technology is one problem with the current Moho sampling efforts. Exploration drilling of the kind used for oil production is not well suited for the work that the ODP is engaged in. Bit designs for the lithostatic loads that these dense rocks develop at depth require a different approach than those used to drill continental sediments buried at depth beneath the ocean.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by ahfoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well here seems to be someone who knows a bit about geology and drilling in particular so let me pose a question and see if you might have the time to reply.
      If these guys can drill a hole this deep in a mere three weeks and nearly hit the Earth's mantle, doesn't it seem that it should be possible to directly harness the abundant heat energy in these holes? I mean if you can make one in a few weeks it would seem you could make dozens, if not hundreds, in a year. There's got to be enormous heat if you're a thusand feet from the upper mantle and you're right next to vast reserves of cool water as well. This seems the ideal environment for a heat cycle engine.
      While not identical, the situation seems somewhat similar to the question of why we don't harness the heat energy of volcanoes. The answer I've always gotten is that it's too difficult to control a volcano.
      Certainly that's reasonable in the case of a volcano on land like Mt. Saint Hellens, but what about these mid-oceanic ridges just like where JOIDES is drilling here. In this case, it seems you can create a sort of controlled volcano. In fact, that seems to be what they're describing. Doesn't this seems like a fairly accessible source of thermal energy?

    2. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They already do this, it is a source of energy - I forget what it is called, but they use the thermal energy in the earth to heat cylinders of water, from which the steam is used to turn turbines.

      The only issue which has sparked random fears is if we're accelerating the rate at which we cool the earth's core - this is bad. I'm not entirely clear on it, and the original poster would probably know more, but I don't think we have enough data to be sure of anything on that issue.

      Also, it's very expensive. And if something breaks, it's even more expensive to fix.

    3. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of idiot would think the Earth is going to be cooled by harnessing its heat? The Earth if radioactive and it generates heat from radioactive deacay, that's common knowledge. There may be various other sources of heat, but certainly the Earth is producing heat from radioactive decay. Bringing that heat closer to the surface as steam and cooling that steam to produce motion and turn a generator is not going to have the slightest influence on the Earth's temperature.

    4. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't need to drill that far down to get water to turn to steam. Drill two deep holes into common granite, seperated by say 100 meters. Drop in some explosives to crack the granite between the holes at the bottom. Pump cold water down one hole and steam will come out of the other. Granite heats up because it is mildly radioactive and a single drill site can stay hot for ~50yrs. I saw this investigated on Australin TV by the CSRIO about 15 years ago but have no idea why it was not developed further.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by jaakkeli · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If these guys can drill a hole this deep in a mere three weeks and nearly hit the Earth's mantle, doesn't it seem that it should be possible to directly harness the abundant heat energy in these holes?
      So, you drill a hole, put some pipes to bring water there and up. Bringing the heat up will obviously cool the rock that touches your pipe, but as the rock cools, your power production drops. You can only produce energy sustainably if you limit the rate to such that the heat transfer from the rest of the crust is fast enough to balance the cooling. And even if it is really hot down there, the stuff isn't necessarily a good conductor of heat, so this can be a severe limitation to power production. Remember all the nature films where you've seen underwater lava flows: once the stuff starts pouring into water, the surface will solidify quickly, but the inside will be hot for a long time. It's because the water cools the surface fast and the heat doesn't transfer equally quickly to the surface of the rock.
    6. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Find all about Hot Dry Rock geothermal energy here.

    7. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by Stanza · · Score: 1
      That was not the EOS magazine I was thinking of. I clicked on that link and just got confused. Then I realized the EOS you linked to is a photographer magazine.


      The one I'm thinking of is affiliated with the American Geophysical Union. I highly recommend it. Four pages an issue, and usually only one big article, but always a pleasure to read.

    8. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by geomon · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction. I was just getting ready to head out to the field and did the links rather quickly.

      The AGU pub is the one that had the ODP drilling info.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    9. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by khallow · · Score: 1
      What kind of idiot would think the Earth is going to be cooled by harnessing its heat? The Earth if radioactive and it generates heat from radioactive deacay, that's common knowledge. There may be various other sources of heat, but certainly the Earth is producing heat from radioactive decay. Bringing that heat closer to the surface as steam and cooling that steam to produce motion and turn a generator is not going to have the slightest influence on the Earth's temperature.

      Technically, you are cooling a part of the Earth and transfering heat from that part to outer space. I say this merely to fill my nitpick quota for the night. But it's pretty clear that no measurable change in the heat content of the Earth is going to come of harnessing geothermal activity. I've heard similar comments about the heat from human activities (eg, waste heat from nuclear plants) contributing to global warming. People just don't understand that these effects are insignificant.

    10. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that's is the one I was thinking about, I thought it was CSIRO but obviously it is an ANU effort. Glad to see it has not been forgotten and although $26M is not a huge funding effort it is also good to see the idea has progressed into a company with a real project.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The theoretical bad would be, as I understand it, that without a molten core the Earth would not generate a magnetic field, and consequently would lose it's atmosphere.

    12. Re:Drilling Technology Upgrades Needed by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      You could put the whole power plant down there however, assuming you could overcome the engineering challenges of pressure, heat and semi molten rock. Then you could just have power cables sending the electricity straight back up. Not easy, but doable.

  24. I've seen this episode! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's hope UNIT's mysterious scientific advisor puts a stop to this before it's too late!

  25. Obligitory Invader Zim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tak: I have created a magma pump to hollow out the Earth's molten core.

    Zim: I could do that!

    Tak: Once empty I'll fill the planet with snacks as an offering to my Tallest.

    1. Re:Obligitory Invader Zim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goddamit that show rocked. Nickelodeon sucks for axing it. Here, they should it at freaking 7:00am, then said they were cutting it because it wasn't getting viewers. Hint, you fucking execs: a darkly humorous show aimed squarely at a cynical teen/preteen market is NOT best aired at 7:00am...

    2. Re:Obligitory Invader Zim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/should/showed/g
      Geez

  26. Re:Grrrreat. Let's poke a big hole in the planet. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

    Previous communications in this journal have indicated that "O.B. ultra-absorbency" type tampons are the most effective.

  27. Start drilling from the other side NOW... by mmThe1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Start drilling from the other side NOW...

    Would be fun to enjoy the world's largest magnetic seasaw.

    1. Re:Start drilling from the other side NOW... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but how would you get off?

  28. Help me out... by John+Seminal · · Score: 0, Troll
    But how smart is drilling into the core of the earth? Aren't they asking for one huge volcano?

    And what about terrorism. If someone who was hell bent on one HUGE suicide bomb, what is to stop a country from picking 4 or 5 places around the world, dig deep, and pack a nuke. Blow up the nuke, and the earth is rearranged. Best case scenerio you just redistributed a ton of molten lava. Worst case scenereo and the USA is relocated to the moon.

    One last question, to the lawyers. When I buy land, and I get mineral rights, just how deep into the eart are my digging rights?

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Help me out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about white american christians bringing about JudgeMentDay?

      Flamebait.

    2. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 4, Informative

      But how smart is drilling into the core of the earth? Aren't they asking for one huge volcano?

      No, as magma is coming up to the surface all the time all over the world in holes much, much larger than the borehole.

      If someone who was hell bent on one HUGE suicide bomb, what is to stop a country from picking 4 or 5 places around the world, dig deep, and pack a nuke. Blow up the nuke, and the earth is rearranged.

      Nothing much would happen. The energy already being released by normal volcanoes and earthquakes is far more than we could produce with nuclear weapons. For example, the Mount St. Helens volcano released energy in just one day (18 May 1980) equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT - about 20,000 Hiroshima bombs. That is a significant fraction of the entire world's current nuclear arsenal - from just one volcano! A few nukes exploded around the world is not going to do anything.

    3. Re:Help me out... by EtherAlchemist · · Score: 4, Informative


      Aren't they asking for one huge volcano?

      No. Well, maybe in the movies.

      Think about it for a second. All over the world there a thousands of holes that already lead to the molten material, and yes- they are volcanoes.

      BUT, how many of those are constantly spewing molten rock? Relatively few. And some of those are so consistent in their eruptions people live on them. Hawaii for one, Iceland another.

      When a volcano like Tambora (largest recent) or even Fish Canyon or Yellowstone (28 million and 1.3 million YA, respectively) went off, the earth wasn't "rearranged." Sticking a nuke in a relatively tiny hole wouldn't even really have a major impact on the local area. It certainly wouldn't cause the kind of damage you're talking about. How many times have nukes been tested underground, or even above? The damage to the earth was minimal. It was all the things around the blast that suffered damage.

      Worst case scenereo and the USA is relocated to the moon.

      Unlikely, Fish Canyon only ejected about 5000 cubic kilometers and it was in the USA which is, obviously, still here.

      --
      R(k)
    4. Re:Help me out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say you are depressed.

      I am not a doctor, but maybe part of the cause of your depression, other than being insanely stupid, is your last name.

      Change your last name to, I don't know, Manseed, or Whitejuice, and maybe your ink-blot score will shoot up 6 or 7 points!

    5. Re:Help me out... by Teun · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But how smart is drilling into the core of the earth? Aren't they asking for one huge volcano?

      Such a bore hole is typically only a few centimeters (10-15) across for a depth of several kilometers, the rising lava would cool down and solidify within a few hundreds of meters.

      And what about terrorism.

      If you'd read TFA you would have known this drilling is a very high tech exercise.
      Doing it at several places simultaneously would require the worlds best equipment, even the CIA might notice...

      But then, during the cold war some of the worlds largest nuclear explosions were already set off at the bottom of bore holes (a.o. in Nevada) and so far without much damage to anything more than a few kilometers away.

      By the way, the story is weird in calling a 1400+ meters hole the third deepest ever drilled.
      The oil industry routinely drills more than 6000 meters below the sea floor.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:Help me out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The energy already being released by normal volcanoes and earthquakes is far more than we could produce with nuclear weapons.

      Shouldn't you instead be comparing the energy released by normal volcanoes and the energy released by volcanoes initiated by a manmade charge (if indeed a charge in such a bore-hole could produce any such effect)?

      If it were possible, for example, to crash the fault in the Bahamas with a nuclear charge, the resultant super-tsunami would also cause more damage to the US than the original explosion(s) relocated from the Bahamas to the US east-coast would, wouldn't it?

    7. Re:Help me out... by pinchhazard · · Score: 1, Interesting
      One last question, to the lawyers. When I buy land, and I get mineral rights, just how deep into the eart are my digging rights?

      That's interesting -- there'd have to be some formulas (math guys insert shit here) to determine how your property boundaries narrow as they descend. Like if you had a 1x1 acre plot on the surface, and drew a line from the corners of your plot down to the center point of the earth, your plot in three dimensions would be a four sided pyramid with a base of one square acre and height of 6,000+ miles. If your surface plot was a circle, your plot in three dimensions would be a cone.

      --
      Do you love freedom??? Do you love freedom!!! DO YOU LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
    8. Re:Help me out... by Rostin · · Score: 1

      For example, the Mount St. Helens volcano released energy in just one day (18 May 1980) equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT - about 20,000 Hiroshima bombs.

      Although I think your criticism of the parent is probably correct, this isn't a very helpful comparison. It's also true that a barrel (42 gallons) of oil contains more energy than a ton of TNT, and a ton of coal contains around 7 times as much. (see this table). A ton of TNT makes a lot bigger hole in the ground, though. What needs to be considered here is not just energy content, but rate. How fast was the energy liberated? Mount Saint Helens was not equivalent in explosive power to 20,000 Hiroshimas, so that bit of trivia is a little misleading.

    9. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      How fast was the energy liberated? Mount Saint Helens was not equivalent in explosive power to 20,000 Hiroshimas, so that bit of trivia is a little misleading.

      It is a good indication of scale. One or two individual nuclear weapons would have virtually no comparable effect, no matter how fast the energy was released (after all, much of the energy release from St. Helens WAS explosive!)

    10. Re:Help me out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. The Ruskies built a 100 megaton (100million tons) nuke. They only set it off at 56 odd megatons when they did the test though.

    11. Re:Help me out... by 51mon · · Score: 1

      400 Megatonnes or about 7 Tsar Bomba yields (I thought the yield estimate had gone up for this one but 57Mt stands apparently).

      The worlds nuclear arsenal is designed for destroying on the scale of cities and miltary targets, if we wanted to destroy continents we would build different sorts of nukes.

      Nuclear scientists reportedly have designs for much bigger nukes (this was 1961 technology after all), but there is no motivation to build such devices.

      A handful of nukes within our current technical abilities probably could create TEOTWAWKI

    12. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shouldn't you instead be comparing the energy released by normal volcanoes and the energy released by volcanoes initiated by a manmade charge (if indeed a charge in such a bore-hole could produce any such effect)?

      No, because energy is energy! individual pressure releases from magma chambers can be pretty much equivalent to the effect of nuclear explosions.

      If it were possible, for example, to crash the fault in the Bahamas with a nuclear charge, the resultant super-tsunami would also cause more damage to the US than the original explosion(s) relocated from the Bahamas to the US east-coast would, wouldn't it?

      Well, yes, but that is not what the original poster was saying. This would neither produce a man-made volcano, or would it 'blow the USA to the moon'.

      Also, how would you 'crash' the fault?
      To quote from the California Geological Survey:
      "..the use of a nuclear explosion to cause or prevent a significant earthquake is considered science fiction." A nuke can create very minor earth tremors, but the main effect is to liquefy rock and create a big hole.

    13. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      A handful of nukes within our current technical abilities probably could create TEOTWAWKI

      Hardly! Every day there is more energy released in thunderstorms than in a handful of nukes. The human race has survived ice ages and supervolcanoes. Our nuclear arsenal is feeble by comparison.

    14. Re:Help me out... by Mazem · · Score: 1

      The Hiroshima bomb was nothing compared to the current nuclear weapons technology. When the Soviets detonated the Tsar Bomba, the yield was conservatively estimated at 50 megatons. That's only 1/8th the energy released by Mt. St. Helens. I wouldn't be surprised if even more powerful devices exist.

    15. Re:Help me out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thunderstorms aren't exactly radioactive and cause lots of destruction.

      Nuclear proliferation is a serious business becuase it wouldn't take much to cause destruction on a global scale if a few of the world's powers got into a fight.

    16. Re:Help me out... by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      "If it were possible, for example, to crash the fault in the Bahamas with a nuclear charge, the resultant super-tsunami would also cause more damage to the US than the original explosion(s) relocated from the Bahamas to the US east-coast would, wouldn't it?"

      That works great in the movies, but movies use an alternate universe of physics and geology.

    17. Re:Help me out... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1
      But how smart is drilling into the core of the earth? Aren't they asking for one huge volcano?

      No, as magma is coming up to the surface all the time all over the world in holes much, much larger than the borehole.

      A smaller pipe?
      That means more pressure...
      So they're not asking for a huge volcano, but for a high pressure volcano...
      That's not very reassuring!
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    18. Re:Help me out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The formula is pretty trivial once you realize that at any depth, people would own the same % of the total surface area.

      what you own at ground level / Surface Area of earth at ground level = what you own at any depth d / surface area of earth at depth d

    19. Re:Help me out... by blincoln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "..the use of a nuclear explosion to cause or prevent a significant earthquake is considered science fiction." A nuke can create very minor earth tremors, but the main effect is to liquefy rock and create a big hole.

      Cannikin - a 5 megaton ABM warhead detonated underground in Alaska - caused the equivalent of a 6.5+ earthquake, with part of the island it was detonated under being permanently raised, and a long section of coastline falling into the sea.

      The CGS and USGS play this down a bit, and I'm not entirely sure why.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    20. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      A smaller pipe?
      That means more pressure...
      So they're not asking for a huge volcano, but for a high pressure volcano...
      That's not very reassuring!


      It does not mean more pressure, as the borehole is so small that there would be enormous friction. Magma is not like water or oil - it is a viscous, lumpy fluid.

      Also, even if there was high pressure, the small diameter of the pipe would be that there would be an extremely small volume of flow.

    21. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cannikin - a 5 megaton ABM warhead detonated underground in Alaska - caused the equivalent of a 6.5+ earthquake, with part of the island it was detonated under being permanently raised, and a long section of coastline falling into the sea.

      The CGS and USGS play this down a bit, and I'm not entirely sure why.


      Because this did not happen. There was no earthquake. There was a ground wave produced by the blast which, close to the site, was similar to the ground wave which would have been detected over a much wider area if there had been an earthquake, but there was no quake, either locally or elsewhere.

      Of course a small part of the island close to the blast was raised - this is what happens with underground explosions! But, the main effect was a 40-foot deep crater. As for a section of the coastline falling into the sea - I can find no evidence or reports of this anywhere.

    22. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 2

      Nuclear proliferation is a serious business becuase it wouldn't take much to cause destruction on a global scale if a few of the world's powers got into a fight.

      Nuclear proliferation is a serious business because nuclear weapons are unpleasant and messy and could cause millions of deaths, but as for global destruction, we haven't a chance of doing anything serious. Every few million years we get hit by asteroids that have more energy than all of our nuclear weapons combined. These events cause little long-term damage either to the Earth or the diversity of species. Occasionally something big hits, like the dinosaur killer. That had an energy about 20,000 times greater (equivalent to 300 million nuclear weapons). It did a lot of damage, but life survived.

      We have the capacity to make life very unpleasant for humanity, but we have nowhere near the capacity to cause anything like global destruction. If we had a nuclear war, most life on earth would barely notice it. (If you are worried about the radioactivity, consider the rich and life-filled forests that are happily coping with the environment around Chernobyl).

    23. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      When the Soviets detonated the Tsar Bomba, the yield was conservatively estimated at 50 megatons. That's only 1/8th the energy released by Mt. St. Helens. I wouldn't be surprised if even more powerful devices exist.

      Yes, but most nukes are nowhere near that size. Also, the energy released was trivial compared to the energy that had been involved in the magma melting rock and rising to the surface, which is what would be required to create a new volcano.

    24. Re:Help me out... by blincoln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because this did not happen. There was no earthquake. There was a ground wave produced by the blast which, close to the site, was similar to the ground wave which would have been detected over a much wider area if there had been an earthquake, but there was no quake, either locally or elsewhere.

      There were many, many aftershocks after the main one. It's been about a decade since I took a geology course, but I have difficulty envisioning how this could occur if there wasn't some sort of tectonic activity involved.

      As for a section of the coastline falling into the sea - I can find no evidence or reports of this anywhere.

      You can see footage of it in Atomic Journeys (the third film in the "Trinity and Beyond" series). It also has some excellent shots of the huge cracks opened by Faultless.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    25. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 3, Informative

      There were many, many aftershocks after the main one. It's been about a decade since I took a geology course, but I have difficulty envisioning how this could occur if there wasn't some sort of tectonic activity involved.

      There was no shock! It was a local ground wave, not an earthquake. There may have been slight aftershocks at the site, as rock caved in to the hole generated by the blast. There were no earthquakes, and no tectonic activity - the blast was 5 megatons, which is absolutely negligible compared to the energy in even the smallest quake.

      You can see footage of it in Atomic Journeys (the third film in the "Trinity and Beyond" series). It also has some excellent shots of the huge cracks opened by Faultless.

      Well, big bombs will open cracks, but these are nothing on the scale of tectonic events.

      I have not seen the film, but I don't rate a single movie narrated by William Shatner as a definitive source of scientific information. It may be true, but I don't consider that useful evidence.

    26. Re:Help me out... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      I have not seen the film, but I don't rate a single movie narrated by William Shatner as a definitive source of scientific information. It may be true, but I don't consider that useful evidence.

      The footage was shot by the team doing the test. I'm not really sure what William Shatner has to do with the scientific credibility of that.

      The documentary states that there were over 1000 aftershocks which occured over the course of about a month after the actual detonation. Given that the production team interviewed a number of people who actually worked on the project, I'm inclined to believe them. OTOH since I can't find any hard data regarding the measurements taken at the site of the effects, I guess arguing that issue right now is pointless.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    27. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      The documentary states that there were over 1000 aftershocks which occured over the course of about a month after the actual detonation

      I would put it like this: 5 Megatons is a minute amount of energy compared to natural processes and it depends what you mean by 'aftershock'. There may have been minor earth movements due to the collapsing of material unto underground cavities produced by the blast, but it is a vast exaggeration to call these 'earthquakes'.

      I guess arguing that issue right now is pointless.

      Well, I enjoy the debate, and I have learned a lot looking up information about this!

    28. Re:Help me out... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      "I have not seen the film, but I don't rate a single movie narrated by William Shatner as a definitive source of scientific information."

      Now that's an awesome quote......

    29. Re:Help me out... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Well, I enjoy the debate, and I have learned a lot looking up information about this!

      Hah. Okay, then =).

      5 Megatons is a minute amount of energy compared to natural processes and it depends what you mean by 'aftershock'. There may have been minor earth movements due to the collapsing of material unto underground cavities produced by the blast, but it is a vast exaggeration to call these 'earthquakes'.

      Again, my geology knowledge is very rusty, but I do remember that earthquakes are caused when two tectonic plates briefly catch on each other, then start moving again.

      I'm not saying that a 5 (or even 50) megaton warhead could cause an earthquake directly. As you say, geological processes are many times more powerful. But what I'm thinking is that maybe the shockwave travelling through the plates jarred them slightly out of alignment and ended up triggering earthquakes until they sort of re-aligned themselves.

      If I have two chunks of broken concrete and use a machine to rub them together over and over, they will eventually wear down so that the movement is more smooth, but only with the pieces aligned in the same way (because they're still somewhat uneven).

      I'm wondering if plate tectonics has a similar result (although there the movement isn't repetitive in the same way). My course didn't go into anything like that though. ...and of course, the documentary writers could have put together something misleading based on a misunderstanding of what the scientists told them.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    30. Re:Help me out... by 51mon · · Score: 1

      Read the post Tsar Bomba was 57Mt in 1961, the UK nuclear deterrent is presumably classified still but is just Trident since we destroy 175 warheads in the 200 - 400 Kt range.

      So the UK got major political capital from decommission weapons with the total yield of one 1961 bomb.

      Similarly the remaining warheads in the UK arsenal probably have a similar yield per Trident submarine as the Tsar Bomba. Think many small devices means many targets get hit, with adjustable yield you can tune them down almost as low as the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs, and only wipe out small cities or big military targets.

      One big bomb means you flatten one target completely and scare the living daylights out of anyone within a thousand miles or so. Which might make for good "shock and awe" but is totally useless if you want to live on the planet afterwards.

      The point is that the individual devices in the worlds nuclear arsenals don't match big earthquakes (the UK created a 5.3 magnitude earthquake in one of their tests), because we have deliberately built many small warheads.

      Britain if it wanted could have built 400, 100Mt yield nukes, allowing a total yield of 40 Gt. Detonated underground that could produce 40 earthquakes of the scale that caused the Asian Tsunami in December.

      However even the current UK nuclear arsenal is estimated to be more than sufficent to deplete the ozone layer to almost nothing (in both hemispheres if we nuke the right places), and induces a nuclear winter. If we target the worlds most populous cities we can probably take out over a tenth of the worlds population in the first few minutes.

      Now your definition of TEOTWAWKI may vary from mine, but I think if one relatively small country could scale up two orders of magnitude from total depletion of the ozone layer, I'm not sure what would be left? Algae, and scorpions.

    31. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      But what I'm thinking is that maybe the shockwave travelling through the plates jarred them slightly out of alignment and ended up triggering earthquakes until they sort of re-aligned themselves.

      I see what you mean, but I still don't think it is likely, as almost all earthquakes occur at great depth, and the nukes are creating surface waves.

    32. Re:Help me out... by Decaff · · Score: 1

      One big bomb means you flatten one target completely and scare the living daylights out of anyone within a thousand miles or so. Which might make for good "shock and awe" but is totally useless if you want to live on the planet afterwards.

      No. It is not good if you want to avoid cancer afterward, but for most life, it is not that much of a problem. Look at the rich variety of wildlife that not only survived near Chernobyl, but thrived.

      The point is that the individual devices in the worlds nuclear arsenals don't match big earthquakes (the UK created a 5.3 magnitude earthquake in one of their tests), because we have deliberately built many small warheads.

      Nukes don't create earthquakes. Nukes create mostly shallow surface waves that are the same kind of waves you would have at the surface if there had been an earthquake.

      Also, big nukes are very hard to build, for a variety of technical reasons.

      Now your definition of TEOTWAWKI may vary from mine, but I think if one relatively small country could scale up two orders of magnitude from total depletion of the ozone layer, I'm not sure what would be left? Algae, and scorpions.

      Hardly. The K/T boundary asteroid had an energy of around 200 million megatons. What survived? Quite a lot, including birds, mammals, reptiles, fish...

  29. We're all gonna die!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Imagine that the Earth is a Pop Tart. The crust is analogous to the frosting on a Straberry Pop Tart. The mantle is much like the delicious gooey interior of the aforementioned Pop Tart. When the Earth's crust is breached, much like a Pop Tart left too long in a toaster, hot magma will shoot miles into the sky in all directions until the fire is extinguished, or all the Earth is consumed. Stop these mad scientists now!

    1. Re:We're all gonna die!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You bastard! Now I want a Pop-Tart.

  30. Why go through all the trouble? by Serious+Simon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No need to drill holes, there are several places on the earth's crust where the Moho is spilling right out...

    1. Re:Why go through all the trouble? by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

      But you're missing the point of drilling the hole, at the same time they're drilling samples are being collected to understand the evolution of the earth and it's crust.

    2. Re:Why go through all the trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Dumbass.

      Try looking up what the Moho discontinuity actually is, then you might have a better idea of what you're talking about. I'll give you a hint...it's not about volcanoes.

    3. Re:Why go through all the trouble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're missing the point of drilling the hole, at the same time they're drilling samples are being collected to understand the evolution of the earth and it's crust.

      And you missed spelling class.

  31. Lack of judgement, but not the way you'd think.. by proteonic · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Our incredibly expensive uber-drill has pierced through to the earth's mantle! Now let's get it home before the magma damages.. oh crap.."

  32. Wait a minute... by darkitecture · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Wait a minute...

    Are you trying to tell me that this whole damn time, we've never broken through the earth's crust and seen the mantle for ourselves? We can send something 8.7 billion miles away but we can't drill two miles down? Doesn't this strike people as a bit odd or disconcerting?

    Personally I'd like to learn just as much about the earth under my feet as the stars above my head.

    I'd like to see this get more funding and see us reach the mantle in the next few weeks instead of waiting for some time in the "coming years."

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by John+Seminal · · Score: 0, Troll
      Personally I'd like to learn just as much about the earth under my feet as the stars above my head.

      Please be my guest. Just let me close the door behind you.

      Are you trying to tell me that this whole damn time, we've never broken through the earth's crust and seen the mantle for ourselves? We can send something 8.7 billion miles away but we can't drill two miles down? Doesn't this strike people as a bit odd or disconcerting?

      We are already destroying the planet. All we need is to find ways to get deeper in it. Maybe we can make new garbage dumps down there, and the molten lava will consume it like a huge furnace.

      But I don't like it, not one bit.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    2. Re:Wait a minute... by dragons_flight · · Score: 4, Informative

      Drilling two miles isn't that hard and has certainly been done before. The deepest drill hole on land goes down some 12 km.

      But this isn't the same thing. This is trying to drill down 3+ km below the bottom of the Atlantic. In this case the drilling starts under 750 m of water (and only because Atlantis Massif is a relatively high spot on the sea floor). The mid-ocean ridge in the Atlantic is their target because it has some of the shallowest Moho in the world. To reach the Moho from a continental section you would probably have to drill 25 km or more even with a good choice of location.

    3. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      With all the challenges that space exploration represents it is still only a 1 atmosphere difference with the pressure at the surface of the Earth. When you (or any piece of machinery) goes under water we are talking an extra atmosphere every 10 meters. I don't know the pressure gradient in the crust, but it must be of the same order of magnitude. In other words, it is quite a challenge to work at these depths... well... ok, I know more about ocean physics than geology, but I am sure the pressure is a very problematic obstacle.

    4. Re:Wait a minute... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Are you trying to tell me that this whole damn time, we've never broken through the earth's crust and seen the mantle for ourselves? We can send something 8.7 billion miles away but we can't drill two miles down? Doesn't this strike people as a bit odd or disconcerting?
      Why should the ability to do one imply the ability to do the other? They are completely different technologies, in two completely different enviroments.

      Also consider this; to seen something umpty billion miles away, you only have to get it a couple of hundred miles away with enough speed... and wait a while. Meanwhile, to drill two miles down, you have to fight the environment each and every inch.

      One is actual and constant work, the other... merely coasting. There's a huge difference there.

    5. Re:Wait a minute... by gunpowder · · Score: 1

      The deepest drill hole on land goes down some 12 km.

      Yes, also see my other comment.

  33. Hole's Enemy by Chubby_C · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't forget the hole's only natural enemy is the pile

    --
    - My question is: Can Slashdot be Slashdotted? -
  34. scooped by Saturday Night Live by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's sad, really, that I heard about this first on SNL. It used to be that I'd hear about news for nerds here first.

    1. Re:scooped by Saturday Night Live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want to be really scared just look a few comments up in the thread. A Friends quote (with Joey no less!) has got a +5 Funny.

      Sad times for /. indeed. I think the balance has finally tipped. /. officially now has more AOLers than geeks.

    2. Re:scooped by Saturday Night Live by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      It's true, this is my goodbye post. I'm coughing up the :10bux: and making the jump to General Bullshit & SH/SC over at somethingawful. The high real monetary cost (for 12 year olds) of doing something stupid does a great job of keeping the idiots supressed.

  35. Let the mantle come to us... by UpLateDrinkingCoffee · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Isn't this exactly what a volcano is? Mantle from the edge of the earth's core forming a plume and eventually braking through the earth's surface? I can see the interest in the geology on the way there, but if their goal is the mantle itself, it seems like there's an easier way. Just wondering...

    1. Re:Let the mantle come to us... by GeoGreg · · Score: 4, Informative

      The stuff that comes out of volcanoes is not pure mantle material. In fact, usually it's melted crustal material. Or some mixture of mantle and crustal material. Only occasionally do volcanoes cough up a hunk of mantle. More usually, we can look at pieces of mantle that may have gotten caught up in some tectonic process and been uplifted for us to see. But that's rare, and the rocks are often altered by other processes.

  36. It's perfectly normal. by Omkar · · Score: 1

    It's a bit harder to walk across the yard than to walk an equal length straight down.

    1. Re:It's perfectly normal. by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      You mean, easier.

    2. Re:It's perfectly normal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, cause you can't walk downwards. You fall.

    3. Re:It's perfectly normal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to re-read what the GP wrote.

    4. Re:It's perfectly normal. by Omkar · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do, thanks.

  37. Re:is it wise? HAWAII!! by nazh · · Score: 2, Funny

    So you say we can make HawaIII this way?

  38. Obligatory Spelling Nazi post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's "Obligatory" and "grammar".

  39. Re:Lack of judgement, but not the way you'd think. by shadowsurfr1 · · Score: 1

    That's what I was thinking. But since it's underwater, wouldn't the magma be allowed to cool, and then inspected?

  40. Maybe it's just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but don't you feel a bit put upon when you find out a few people have decided they have the right to drill a hole right through the planet? I mean, it's ours too. Shouldn't we have had a vote? Or at least a letter telling us what they're going to do?

    Seems a bit arrogrant, really.

  41. They'll know when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John said mantle material will be evident when and if it's brought up because it will have different texture and chemistry and will contain different proportions of minerals compared with rock in the crust.

    I'm imagining that the fountain of liquid magma might also be a clue.

  42. Re:First they pearce the crust... by caryw · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a diagram of Earth's layers:
    http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/images/plate% 20tectonics/Earthcore.jpg

    My only question is what if the enormous amount of pressure from the mantle forced tons of lava to shoot into the ocean? Or in reverse what if the pressure of the ocean was greater and we open a giant drain in the middle of the atlantic?

    Would the lava/water contact just harden to rock instantly and allow nothing more through?

    Probably quite ignorant fears, but still worth asking.
    --
    Fairfax Underground: Message boards and Chat for residents of Fairfax County and Northern Virginia

  43. Re:is it wise? HAWAII!! by Thunderstruck · · Score: 4, Funny

    The same way we got the Dakotas. We walked up to the natives and said hey, lets have a treaty...

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
  44. Have they lowered a microphone down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Surely they will hear the sounds of hell itself?

    http://www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.htm

  45. Grammar Nazi new recruit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Oblgatory?" "Grammer?" No capitalization at the beginning of your sentence? No punctuation at the end of it?

    I guess the Grammar Nazis have adopted the "Do as we say, not as we do" policy.

  46. Re:Oblgatory Grammer Nazi post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, if you RTFA, it is about them reaching the bottom layer of the crust, and planning on drilling the rest of the way through to the mantle. The title is correct.

  47. What I'm sure is a dumb question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure this is a stupid question, but here goes...

    Lets say you could dig a hole all the way through the Earth, I know there are a 1000 things you'd have to over come, but play along... If you were to drop something down the hole would it ever make it to the other side? I would think somewhere the pull of gravity would change directions and you get somewhat of a pendulum effect till the object stopped.

    1. Re:What I'm sure is a dumb question by nysus · · Score: 1

      Funny...I came here to ask the same question.

      I think it would not make it to the other side because of air friction. Theoretically, I think the object would ping pong back and forth through the shaft until it came to rest, weightless, smack in the middle of the planet.

      I'm no physicist, though, so I'm probably wrong. What do others think would happen?

      --

      ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    2. Re:What I'm sure is a dumb question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your are right - Your wouldnt *quite* pop out the other end due to air friction - wether you were close enough to grab the edge of the hole and pull yourself out would require some calculation.

    3. Re:What I'm sure is a dumb question by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      I think you'd hit terminal velocity long before you hit midpoint. Likely you'd miss the other top by a LOT.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    4. Re:What I'm sure is a dumb question by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      it was not my intent to be a troll, i used to work on oil drilling rigs in west Texas in the 1980's and seen a few blowouts firsthand, so i know mother nature is not something to take lightly...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    5. Re:What I'm sure is a dumb question by XSpud · · Score: 1
      If you could create a vacuum in the tunnel in theory you would have access to zero-cost travel - just drop goods down the hole and they would appear at the other end an hour or so later (assuming they didn't hit the sides of the tunnel, creating friction). However, unless you wanted to travel between the 2 poles, you would be better off creating curved tunnels as any object that is dropped would not naturally travel in a straight line due to conservation of angular momentum which would make falling objects veer to the east. This means that it would not be efficient to return to your initial start point through the same tunnel. For this reason, the pendulum effect you describe would be slightly different - it would not be as pleasant on the way back as you can't help but hit the walls.

      With such a transport system you would reach speeds in excess of 10,000 km/hr, and with a network of tunnels could travel free to just about any line of longitude, (with multiple legs). Travelling between latitudes would be more of a problem though as you can only fall to the equivalent latitude in the opposite hemisphere.

      If the tunnels were bored sufficiently accurately it should be possible for humans to travel using such a method, with little risk of hitting the walls (which would no doubt be a bit painful at 10,000km/hr). It's probably advisable to wear a spacesuit though.

  48. Re:First they pearce the crust... by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... then they reach the mantle? Did I get that right?

    No...everyone knows we reach China before anything else.

  49. Didn't Dr. Dana Andrews do this back in '65? by drphil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Damn near killed us all as I remember it.

    1. Re:Didn't Dr. Dana Andrews do this back in '65? by qzulla · · Score: 1

      I saw this in the theater. This and Robinson Crusoe on Mars drove me heavily into SF.

      Too bad Batman died on Mars.

      qz

    2. Re:Didn't Dr. Dana Andrews do this back in '65? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another site is here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059065/ . I was pretty entertained as a 10 year old by this film. It could be updated by 'Dr. Evil', but I think you would have to pay the actors a hundred million billion jillion dollars to do it (I would do it for only a billion jillion, therefore a bargain).

  50. What, no bawdy humor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm amazed to not see any jokes about "piercing moho", seems like an obvious one to me.

  51. Isn't it funny... by absurdist · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    ...how idiotic comments like this one are inevitably posted by ACs?

    If you're so enthralled with your a:humor, b:vitriol, c:idiotic childish babbling, d:quoting of Fox News (I'm sorry, c: and d: are pretty much the same thing), why not post it under your own name so everyone can see who you are?

    1. Re:Isn't it funny... by Bohemoth2 · · Score: 1

      The parent is not an AC it's Doc Ruby, idiot!

    2. Re:Isn't it funny... by thedustbustr · · Score: 1

      -1, ignorant fucktard

      --
      This sig is false.
    3. Re:Isn't it funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we all know that choosing a psuedoname on Slashdot is somehow equivalent to you getting up to the podium and introducing yourself with your real name.

      Nothing more pathetic than some righteous idiot who thinks that by virtue of being logged in that you are somehow telling everyone who you are and making yourself accountable.

      What a joke!

    4. Re:Isn't it funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ' If you're so enthralled with your a:humor, b:vitriol, c:idiotic childish babbling, d:quoting of Fox News (I'm sorry, c: and d: are pretty much the same" '

      Factual news sources are quite disconcerting to those who believe that all news should be left-wing.

    5. Re:Isn't it funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox News is errant in reporting?
      1 John Kerry's traitorous actions after serving in 'Nam?
      2 Teresa Heinz's Pussy Diameter?

      3 The TRUTH fair and balanced to boot.

    6. Re:Isn't it funny... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I am Doc Ruby, and I did not authorize that message.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  52. 1000 feet off? by 8Complex · · Score: 0

    Did they do the calculations in metric?

  53. Re:First they pearce the crust... by n3tfury · · Score: 1, Funny

    it's nougat, not chocolate core. >:E

  54. Don't we already know? by presidentbeef · · Score: 1

    I mean, wasn't it in the 1800's when this was first attempted?

    --
    Everything I need to know about copyrights I learned from Slashdot.
  55. Inferno by akp · · Score: 1

    Aw, man! Does this mean that we're going to have to deal with Primords? At least the BBC has prepared for this by bringing Dr. Who back...

  56. Re:First they pearce the crust... by smoketetsu999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I doubt it, worst case scenario? They create a new volcano. Volcanos usually start underwater and build up in time when it flows and cools into new layers. There are small underwater volcanos all over the ocean.

  57. This will prove incredibly useful by AbsurdProverb · · Score: 1

    should THE CORE OF THE EARTH STOP SPINNING
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298814/

    1. Re:This will prove incredibly useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like Mr. Rat has failed to control the flow of information on the Internet.

  58. Re:At what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    yeah, how many iraquis could have been killed with money ?

  59. Re:Virtually limitless supply of oil by Chexiepie · · Score: 1

    You know, I think this post is kind of lame too, but how is it "overrated" if it hasn't got any other moderation?

  60. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Russians drilled had a drilling operation in Siberia and broke through the crust back in 1988 and found hell, where they recorded the screams of the damned.

    http://amightywind.com/hell/aboutsounds.htm

    [cough]

    http://www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.htm

  61. Putting our habitable zone in perspective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you head west from Silicon Valley, you'll cross the Santa Cruz Mountains. From these mountains, on a clear day you have a spectacular view all the way across Monterey Bay, to Monterey and beyond.

    I mention this because this view of Monterey Bay allows one to easily put things in perspective on how small the habitable life zone on Earth is.

    The Bay forms a half-circle, and it's about 30 miles from the Santa Cruz yacht harbor to the Monterey harbor. So you've got one big half-circle with a diameter of 30 miles.

    The Earth's crust averages about 20 miles thick on the continents; to within a few miles in the oceans (similar to where this project is drilling, it appears).

    So in otherwords, within one Montery-Bay diameter, you are looking at the limit of the Earth's crust; and there are no known life forms below this region (at least presently).

    Now look upwards to the sky. 30 miles is about 160,000 feet. The stratosphere and below contain most of the breathable air on Earth (and actually most of it is contained far below this). The well known Ozone layer is at the top of the stratosphere.

    The point is, within one Monterey-Bay distance up, you have the limit of the known Biosphere of Earth. Indeed, either one or two diameters is the beginning of Outer Space (depending upon who's definition you use).

    And, within one Montery-Bay distance down, you have the limit of the Earth's solid rock. And these distances represent the limits of our Biosphere as we know it.

    Consider that well the next time you see pollution going into the atmosphere.

    The other reason why this distance is interesting is because you could once could hold the entire Earth's population within it. And perhaps you still can, if everyone squeezes into a 1 square foot area.

    The area of Montery bay is 1/2*PI*r^2. With r=15 miles, that's 79,200 feet. So the total area is about 9,848,044,800 square feet.

    If you assume 1 square foot per person, the current population can fit within there. Yes, perhaps that's a squeeze, but it does illustrate the point.

    So, if you happen to go to Santa Cruz sometime, or some other place where you can see 30 miles away, keep these facts in mind, and it will help give you an idea of how limited our Biosphere is, and how many people are within it.

    It is not unlimited, like many people tend to believe.

    1. Re:Putting our habitable zone in perspective. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 0

      Thank you. Next time I'm out that way I hope I remember to take a look at that view.
      I would however point out that our world, indeed our universe is full of these wonders of size and perspective.
      As you pointed out that's not much more space than needed to store the human race, actually I wonce saw man climb into a space 1' on a side on some tv show. And yet somehow that small dot of flesh is supposedly ruining the climate by creating fluctuation in temp the likes of which the earth hasn't seen since, err well just a few hundred years ago, and bigger by far a few centuries ago and...
      That tiny span from crust bottom to atmosphere top is indeed tiny, but by the same token it completely wraps the surface of the earth. over 7 thousand miles in diameter.
      I'm not saying we're having an effect, or that pollution is ok. What I am saying is we're still pretty much guessing what that effect is and to what extents it goes. Running around screaming we're gonna freeze, or is it melt this decade (dunno it changes every dozen years or so) the earth like chicken little is stupid and irresponsible.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    2. Re:Putting our habitable zone in perspective. by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Next time I'm out that way I hope I remember to take a look at that view.
      I would however point out that our world, indeed our universe is full of these wonders of size and perspective.
      As you pointed out that's not much more space than needed to store the human race, actually I wonce saw man climb into a space 1' on a side on some tv show. And yet somehow that small dot of flesh is supposedly ruining the climate by creating fluctuation in temp the likes of which the earth hasn't seen since, err well just a few hundred years ago, and bigger by far a few centuries ago and...
      That tiny span from crust bottom to atmosphere top is indeed tiny, but by the same token it completely wraps the surface of the earth. over 7 thousand miles in diameter.
      I'm not saying we're having an effect, or that pollution is ok. What I am saying is we're still pretty much guessing what that effect is and to what extents it goes. Running around screaming we're gonna freeze, or is it melt this decade (dunno it changes every dozen years or so) the earth like chicken little is stupid and irresponsible.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  62. Re:Lack of judgement, but not the way you'd think. by proteonic · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you'd think so, but I really wonder if it wouldn't damage the drill first? I mean, magma is pretty damn hot, by any standards. It's been a long time since I've looked into my chemistry texts, but wouldn't the temps and pressures required to melt rock be more than sufficient to put an end to any metals used in the construciton of a drilll? Just a thought. I guess at best you'll end up with your drill embedded in a magma flow. Then you'd need a SECOND drill to retrieve it.

  63. Earth bleed out by Ghost-in-the-shell · · Score: 1


    I am wondering if a hold of this kind would cause a massive pressure release. Much like the way a volcano works?

    Now all we need is an unobtainimun ship to drive down there ;)

    --
    -Ghost
    1. Re:Earth bleed out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I.B.M. has the worlds supply of unobtainium, and are building custom computer parts with it. The whole laptop has been ruggedized and can withstand both an M1 tank rolling over it, and an armor piercing shell being fired at it at close range, but the little plugin thingie that you need to recharge the unit is made from (a tiny ultra-thin amount) of unobtainium. Should it crack and break, the entire unit instantly becomes worthless. Buy a new one.

  64. Re:Virtually limitless supply of oil by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

    Probably because it was already overrated at 0.

  65. Re:At what cost? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your tax dollars at work. How much money did this cost?

    Here we go again.

    In order to avoid these inevitable comments that appear in every thread with a scientific topic, I suggest that no international research project be allowed to proceed unless it has been cleared by a panel of Anonymous Cowards who have been convinced after watching the teevee for too long that all science is really a scam to squander their tax dollars on foolishness like basic research that shows no promise of an immediate economic benefit such as a drug that makes your peepee harder.

    In response to your question, you might be able to maintain a botched occupation for a few hours with the money.

  66. Re:Grrrreat. Let's poke a big hole in the planet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how is this not +5 yet? It's the funniest comment I've read on slashdot in months!

  67. Leak?! by Robotron23 · · Score: 1

    What if it leaks and horrible lava spreads over the planets crust, covering us all?!
    That is...unless we make good use of our parents basements...could be a good excuse to stockpile beer and pr0n for while the lava cools.

  68. Re:First they pearce the crust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best thing that would happen is that it would turn Fairfax County into one nice pool of lava, you spamming HeSheWhore

  69. Not a deep hole. by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

    Big fat hairy deal.

    A small mining / exploration company in British Columbia, Canada recently drilled a full kilometer deeper (~2600m) trying to find a new extension to the old Sullivan mine, a base metal mine that operated for ~100 years. ... And at that depth, they hit the target they were looking for!

    They weren't drilling into ocean crust, so the moho is much deeper, but they had not much trouble getting to the depth they were at.

    It's not as hard to do as its made out to be.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    1. Re:Not a deep hole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but it's a lot harder to drill under the ocean than under the ground!

      Have you ever digged a hole in your garden? Quite hard, but not too bad.

      Have you ever digged a hole on the beach? A lot harder, slower, and you reach a point where the same amount you take out caves in/fills up with water...

    2. Re:Not a deep hole. by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it is harder, but you are not 'digging' a hole, you are boring into the ground with a tube that supports the ground around it, usually lubricated with a slippery drilling mud that is pumped down the tube, out the drill bit.

      The drill bit is designed either to cut a tube of drill core from the rock that is recovered intact to the surface for analysis, or else to grind up the rock and wash out the material with the pumped water.

      Usually the start of the hole is 'cased' ... bored at a wider diameter, using the wider drill string in as a liner to support the hole while a smaller drill string continues through it deeper.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    3. Re:Not a deep hole. by gunpowder · · Score: 1

      TFA claims it is the deapest hole drilled into the seafloor and that they had drilled into the lower section of Earth's crust for the first time.

      But those guys have drilled much deeper holes before on land.

  70. Deeper than the Russian Kola Peninsula bore? by argent · · Score: 1

    That one went down 12 km. Or is this just effectively deeper because it's being drilled through the ocean floor?

    1. Re:Deeper than the Russian Kola Peninsula bore? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      The question is not about which one is deeper. This one gets closer to the Earth's mantle (the layer below the hard crust) because the thickness of the crust varies a lot.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Deeper than the Russian Kola Peninsula bore? by argent · · Score: 1

      As someone else noted, the Russians made it further.

    3. Re:Deeper than the Russian Kola Peninsula bore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you missed the part where TecknoHog said:

      The question is not about which one is deeper. This one gets closer to the Earth's mantle (the layer below the hard crust) because the thickness of the crust varies a lot.

    4. Re:Deeper than the Russian Kola Peninsula bore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one gets closer to the Earth's mantle (the layer below the hard crust) because the thickness of the crust varies a lot.

      Yes.. specifically, the continental plates are a lot thicker than the ocean ones.

  71. Slashdot is getting terribly slow by fresh27 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This was covered on SNL's Weekend Update before it was on Slashdot. Sad :(

    --
    http://ipod.fresh27.net/
  72. Re:First they pearce the crust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First they pearce the crust, then they reach the mantle? Did I get that right?

    Almost. First they PIERCE the crust.

  73. Fools! by Quixadhal · · Score: 1
    Didn't any of those scientists watch Doctor Who while growing up???

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/episodeguide/i nferno/

  74. Re: Grrrreat. Let's poke a big hole in the planet. by whovian · · Score: 1

    Be afraid. Be VERY afraid, of a planet that can bleed for 4.5 billion years and doesn't die.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  75. Wal-Mart and IKEA by failedlogic · · Score: 4, Funny

    How long before Wal-Mart and/or IKEA uses drilling holes through the Earth to reduce supply-chain management costs. I envision, there could be a hole going from China to California and/or Seattle.

    How much heat can those RFID tags resist anyways??!

    1. Re:Wal-Mart and IKEA by christowang · · Score: 1

      Right after Virgin creates the "Enter the Mantle" Ride. For $10,000 USD you can see almost near the end of the crust.

    2. Re:Wal-Mart and IKEA by carabela · · Score: 1

      Fools!
      Don't you see, Wal-Mart has to RFID-tag each atom of the universe before they make use of supply chain holes through planet cores.

      --

      The more you know, the less you need. [Admin added: from me.]
    3. Re:Wal-Mart and IKEA by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1, Troll

      Actually the idea isn't totataly without merrit. One concept that has been floated in some s.f. stories is of drilling long tunnels that are completely straight between various cities and evacuating them and running high speed vehicles down them. At the same speeds comercial air travel uses today you would find these tube much faster as they DON'T follow the curve of the earth, but rather go straight through.
      By way of example imagine poking a big needle or simular through a cantelope, but at an angle so the entry and exit points are only an inch or two apart.
      You don't actually go through the mantle, but at mid point you could be quite a bit underground.
      Think of the Chunnel as warm up to something crossing a couple thousand kilometers/miles. LA to Chicago for one leg, Chicago to DC for the other?

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    4. Re:Wal-Mart and IKEA by riker1384 · · Score: 0

      It should also be mentioned that this technology would not require any power, except to overcome friction or a difference in altitude between the two ends.

    5. Re:Wal-Mart and IKEA by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      If memory serves me right, if you rely on gravity alone, any trip between any two points will take the exact same amount of time as would a trip directly thru the center of the earth. 84 minutes rings a bell, but that's been 20 years ago.

      Inside the earth, the pull of gravity isn't proportional to r^2, I think it's linear wrt r. Strange.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    6. Re:Wal-Mart and IKEA by 51mon · · Score: 1

      I vaguely recall this one from my physics degree.

      The gravitational pull from being inside a spherical shell is neutral, that is quite easy to prove.

      Thus inside the earth assuming it is made of uniform spheres, you can ignore the spheres you are already underneath.

      Assuming the mass is proportional to the volume in the spheres underneath (constant density - unlikely but hey it is late here), the mass varies as r^3

      force = GMm/r^2 -> Gxr^3m/r^2 -> Gxmr where x is a constant left for the reader to work out but we know what the force is at the surface.

      So not so strange it doesn't fall to dimensional analysis with a few bits of knowhow.

    7. Re:Wal-Mart and IKEA by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the details. Maybe it's not strange, merely counter-intuitive. You wouldn't think that just being in a hole would change an exponent! I guess it's easy to ignore all that earth above you.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    8. Re:Wal-Mart and IKEA by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Troll?
      "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means."--The Princess Bride

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  76. Everyone Knows The Earth is Hollow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And inhabited by shape-shifting reptilian aliens.

    Reptilian Watch

  77. 20,000 foot hole already dug by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not sure if I imagined this or actually read about it.

    A 20,000 foot hole was supposed to have been dug near where I live during WW II in a desperate effort to find oil. There is oil and gas around here, and there has been some exploration in the last ten years Sable Island to the south and Hibernia to the East (apparently a bullseye for US rocket debris!).

    Here is the area:
    Hillsborough Bay map. Near Govenor's Island (switch to map from Satellite image to see names.)

  78. Bah, this is old news. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

    See this article for more information. :-)

  79. Deep-earth gas theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how this will affect the theory. Will they find methane below the crust? How likely is that?

  80. Luke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's your dirt doin in the boss' hole?

  81. Re:First they pearce the crust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Holy crap - maybe they never thought of that - do you think someone should tell them?

  82. Western Deep Gold Mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The deepest mine is a gold mine in South Africa; in 1977 the Western Deep Levels reached a depth of 3581 meters. It is much deeper today...

    1. Re:Western Deep Gold Mine by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Informative

      yes, but that's not the point.

      A single continuous drill hole ~2600m long is a very difficult thing to do. Many things can go wrong to block the hole or damage the drill string forcing abandonment of the hole.

      Mine workings like the South African example are not easy by anymeans, but are very feasible since you are advancing 10 feet or so at a time in , shoring up everything as you go, and can easily replace any broken equipment, and work around most ground problems.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  83. Hollywood by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once again, the movie studios have already made a prediction about projects of this nature. The movie "Crack in the World" was released in 1965 and used then state of the art special effects to demonstrate what would happen if the Earth's core were penetrated.

    Of course, like most Hollywood productions the science behind the script was malarkey. But it was still a pretty good movie for its' time.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  84. Re:At what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the war in Iraq costs about 1 million dollars every twenty minutes. So this basic science research might be worth about 3 or 4 minutes of war time.

  85. Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do I have to get your permission every time I do landscaping? After all, I'm digging up the earth...

  86. Re:is it wise? HAWAII!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hwo do you think we got Hawaii?

    It's a hot spot. They are caused by huge plumes in the mantal.

  87. "The fires within" by thanasakis · · Score: 1

    ...by Arthur Clark.

    This is the first thing that came to my mind when I have read this article. When people try to map the interior of the earth using advanced techniques they discover something more than they expected.

    IMHO a must read and a trully great short story by the famous English author.

  88. Doubtful... by Pyrosophy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unless you live in Chile or Argentina. Check out the antipodes map to see where you'd end up.

    1. Re:Doubtful... by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      Notice something:: the VAST majority of folks wouldn't wind up anywhere except in the water. Oops.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    2. Re:Doubtful... by RsG · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe the OP lived in Southa America... did you ever think of that?

      (note to mods - check the map).

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    3. Re:Doubtful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe a quick look at the post you responded to will answer that question.

    4. Re:Doubtful... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      "Never been to the point on the globe directly opposite New Zealand.."

      Hm, doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Doubtful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep your day job, Zontar.

      (Yes, I 'get it'. *eye roll*)

    6. Re:Doubtful... by smeenz · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the fact that most land mass is opposite water is something to do with the continents balancing each other ?

    7. Re:Doubtful... by m50d · · Score: 1

      You think he could drill exactly straight down at that age?

      --
      I am trolling
    8. Re:Doubtful... by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      Interesting. If you look in the Atlantic Ocean, Australia is exactly opposite of where Atlantis should be...

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
  89. that is where we shoudl dump the toxic waste by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    and all our other garbage... screw land fills... put the crap back where it came from.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  90. A fairly accessible source of energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, you answered your own question.
    The reason they don't just harness the thermal energy to produce electricity is that JOIDES was originally created by and is still sponsored by a group of oil companies. See the DSDP project and the history of plate tectonics. IBM was on-board early too doing control systems for the drill platforms. They've done some wonderful science, but cheap sources of alternative energy is definitely not the goal of their research.

  91. Re:is it wise? HAWAII!! by lafuerzasindical · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yes, but we're dependent on the Morlocks for all of our technology.

  92. Sounds from Hell by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This reminds me of the urban legend that makes the rounds about scientists drilling into the earth being startled by the sounds of hell emerging from the pipe. Complete with escaping bat or demon emerging from the pipe.

    Click here for info on how this story really came about.

    Someone finally did the leg work to track the story down. On the other hand, I would like to find the source of the Audio Clip.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Sounds from Hell by cartel · · Score: 0

      Yea, what do you think about that? I vaguely remember my dad telling me something about that around the time it happened (I was about 5, so it must have been about 1990).

    2. Re:Sounds from Hell by totoanihilation · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but that sounds like a really cheap microphone placed in a shopping mall or train station.

    3. Re:Sounds from Hell by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was covered by Coast to Coast AM, I believe. If you search their site, I believe that they have a CD of audio from the hole.

      If it's the same hole. The sounds were supposedly from "hell".

    4. Re:Sounds from Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The scientist went on to claim that he was helping to design this microphone and was returning to Siberia shortly to further document the phenomenon. He planned to return in about a year with more confirming information on this amazing phenomenon.

      Six months later, I got a letter from another member of the church saying that this man had turned out to be neither a graduate of MIT nor a scientist. In fact, he had skipped town with over $20,000 collected from church members who wanted to help finance his expedition.
      My God, that is fucking beautiful.
    5. Re:Sounds from Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember hearing a "sounds of hell" recording about 8 years ago... funny.

    6. Re:Sounds from Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one can even hear sneaker squeaks on the floor... that's hilarious!

    7. Re:Sounds from Hell by Alien54 · · Score: 1
      the link with the audio actually has the Art Bell intro.

      I wonder what halloween sound effects album it was stolen from?

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    8. Re:Sounds from Hell by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I probably shouldn't have taken the time to read all of the links, since I have quite a bit of work to get done, but, nonetheless, it was an entertaing read.

    9. Re:Sounds from Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nah, those aren't the sounds from hell, that's just CowboyNeal when he was constipated one night. ;)

    10. Re:Sounds from Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dude, you're making me feel old.

    11. Re:Sounds from Hell by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder if hell was pissed about their new skylight?

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    12. Re:Sounds from Hell by Lu1g1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      " This reminds me of the urban legend that makes the rounds about scientists drilling into the earth being startled by the sounds of hell emerging from the pipe. Complete with escaping bat or demon emerging from the pipe."

      Ah, but that is not an urban legend, it is the storyline of doom IV

  93. thedustbustr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1, One of Doc Ruby's Other Accounts

    1. Re:thedustbustr by thedustbustr · · Score: 1

      I'm flattered


      no, wait, I'm not

      --
      This sig is false.
  94. In related news... by mincognito · · Score: 1

    Sony demands "access codes" and sends fleet of AIBO machines to prevent further digging.

  95. Re:is it wise? HAWAII!! by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1
    So you say we can make HawaIII this way?

    Indeed. We can also test the Infinite Monkey theorem by making an uncharted desert isle and waiting to see how long it takes to recreate Gilligan's Island.

    (Hawai-three? Sounds like a 'clever' film sequel title.)

    --
    "'Sonic 3 the Hedgehog'? What a dumb title."
    "It's 'Sonic the Hedgehog 3'."
    "No it isn't. The number's the same color as the 'Sonic', so you read it first."

  96. Way to scoop, slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article was on Drudgereport a WEEK AGO.

    Way to be on top, bitches.

  97. Re:At what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only on Slashdot does a flame with ad hominems score a +5, Insightful.

  98. I wonder though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists are smart enough to drill holes into the earth, but how do they keep it from deflating?

    Or wait a minute.. that would solve the over population problem.. we simply inflate earth some.

    Seriously, yesterday I read about space elevator crap. Aside from it sounding pretty stupid, I wonder if humans will cause earth to be knocked slightly out of orbit with stuff like that, altering climate more drastically than anything else.

  99. ahh, the 60s by emmons · · Score: 1

    When all of mankind's problems could be fixed with either a nuclear bomb or a nuclear reactor. If only things had stayed so simple.

    --
    Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  100. Re:They do shit like this... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    no need for bombs, just get down to areas over 100 C and drop some containers of water

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  101. Total Annhiliation by BalorTFL · · Score: 1

    Uh oh... as soon as they get these Moho mines running, the Krogoths will kill us all!!! C'mon, you know you played it...

  102. You forgot... by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

    "The hot liquid Mag-Ma......."

  103. Re:At what cost? by Saeger · · Score: 1

    You're right, this money should have gone to a "Faith-based organization", then at least it would have done some Good(TM)! Damn scientists always mucking around in things they shouldn't! Hey... I hope you weren't being sarcastic, heathen.

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  104. Wrong Way! by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

    Duh! He wasn't digging straight down.

  105. Moho or Soho? by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Moho" (division between Earth's brittle outer crust and the hotter, softer mantle)

    Not to be confused with Soho, NY where the bitchy upper crust and the hot artsy type meet.

    1. Re:Moho or Soho? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      please use the full term... not ridiculous contractions... "Moho" is a contraction of "Mohorific discontinuity"... it is a boundary layer where seismic waves travel differently, and the conjecture is that on one side the medium is solid, and on the other side, the medium is "liquid"... that's all.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  106. Right by Decaff · · Score: 1

    The facts speak for themselves.

    Which is why I provided some. All the information I gave is freely available and accessible via the web, with independent verification. The energies of the collisions and extinction rates are available for anyone to look up.

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

      Not meaning to critisize you but.

      Why did you bother to reply to a comment by some idiot who posts links to nimp.org?

      He's not worth your time.

    2. Re:Right by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Why did you bother to reply to a comment by some idiot who posts links to nimp.org?

      Because I have too much time on my hands. You are right, I should have ignored it.

  107. Dr. Who by ensignyu · · Score: 1

    Anyone else remember that Dr. Who episode Inferno, with the drilling project and infectious goo?

    1. Re:Dr. Who by jjn1056 · · Score: 1

      LOL, I was wondering the same thing! I live in the US and John Pertwee's Dr. Who was never as popular as Tom Baker, so I only saw that Episode once. But it did raise an interesting point that I don't think future writers ever investigated more, that being that idea that each point in history spawns a parallel universe(s) for every possible choice for that point.

      I always thought that episode was more about the unconscious fear of "what if the Nazi's had beaten us to a useful nuclear bomb?" just as the Darleks seemed to personify a type of latent cultural need to encode the Nazi era into an identifyable villian.

      Anyway, I'm sure this will be modded down as 'can only be understood by another Dr Who Nerd" :)

      --
      Peace, or Not?
  108. Soil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens to all the dirt that comes out the hole?

    Do they dig another one to put it in?

  109. Another science fiction ref by LarryWake · · Score: 1

    "The Eve of RUMOKO" by Roger Zelazny, included in _MY NAME IS LEGION_ . His "man off the grid" investigates who's trying to sabotage a project to use atomic bombs to artifically create an island chain by breaking through to the mantle.

  110. Re:First they pearce the crust... by kjots · · Score: 1

    I think I saw that in a movie once. Except they used a thermonuclear explosion to clear the last few feet of crust. Didn't work out quite as they expected, particulary when a large portion of the Earth's crust decided to launch intself into orbit, taking along with it most of the scientists.

  111. Re:First they pearce the crust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuts. You get to Pellucidar first.

  112. Alternative Enegry Forms by djinn2020 · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think we could slap a turbine on top of the hole and use it for power?

    --
    Mens et Manus
  113. geophysics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    observed seismic energy paths indicate a strong change in refractive index at the moho. Some earth models, supported by geochemical observations(obviously not in-situ), suggest strongly that it's the result of minerological phase change.

    i for one think it's, as one other poster suggested, a sea of oil. yep, a hummer in every chinaman's driveway!

  114. Big deal... by hoppo · · Score: 1

    I'll bet Bruce Willis could dig deeper with just a shovel.

  115. Drillships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not really that deep, Transocean's Discoverer Deep Seas has drilled to a total depth of 24,000 feet in 10,011 feet of water.

    http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/840614679.sht ml

  116. Simply Translated... by blueforce · · Score: 1

    We're making our own Volcano. It'll be neat.

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  117. 1000 feet off? by [cx] · · Score: 1

    Get it right next time....ya jackass..

    [cx]

  118. there's a moho in the bottom of the sea... by underworld · · Score: 1

    everybody now...

    There's a hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a hole, there's a hole
    There's a hole in the bottom of the sea.

    There's a log in the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a log in the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a log, there's a log
    There's a log in the hole in the bottom of the sea.

    There's a branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a branch, there's a branch
    There's a branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea.

    There's a bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a bump, there's a bump
    There's a bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea.

    There's a frog on the bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a frog on the bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a frog, there's a frog
    There's a frog on the bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea.

    There's a tail on the frog on the bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a tail on the frog on the bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a tail, there's a tail
    There's a tail on the frog on the bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea.

    There's a speck on the tail on the frog on the bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the
    bottom of the sea
    There's a speck on the tail on the frog on the bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the
    bottom of the sea
    There's a speck, there's a speck
    There's a speck on the tail on the frog on the bump on the branch on the log in the hole in the
    bottom of the sea.

    There's a fleck on the speck on the tail on the frog on the bump on the branch on the log in
    the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a fleck on the speck on the tail on the frog on the bump on the branch on the log in
    the hole in the bottom of the sea
    There's a fleck, there's a fleck
    There's a fleck on the speck on the tail on the frog on the bump on the branch on the log in
    the hole in the bottom of the sea.

  119. As Bugs would say.. by zerokey93 · · Score: 1

    "appears to have been 1,000 feet off to the side of where it needed to be to pierce the Moho"

    I knew I should have taken that left at Albuquerque!

  120. 1400 BILLION of oil sold... by cheekyboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and 80% of that is profits, when it costs $3 to dig oil in iraq and sell it for $55.

    Now the average cost is probably more in the $10-$15 range.

    So where does all this money go ? an amazing 1.4 trillion dollars???

    Well... just like a cool movie plot lets follow.

    1. Dig and pull out lots of oil in the middle east etc...
    2. Sell it on the market for US DOLLARS
    3. The buyer needs US DOLLARS, so they source it, buy it or sell current bonds whatever assets they have.
    4. The US DOLLARS then go to the middle east companies/governments in the billions yearly
    5. What to do with tonnes of cash, its pretty useless. (wish i had that problem), you invest it in something secure, ie buy US Tbills/Bonds so the cash goes back to USA
    6. Billions of cash gets sent to USA
    7. USA then uses that cash to "LIVE" on a daily basis and pay debts , ie rates on the tbills/bonds.

    So its a vicious circle, money going out of usa, to the east, then back to usa, repeat and rince.

    The high price of oil is really whats keeping USA alive, without it, mega cheap oil would not bring in much cash ($400billion yearly) to fund usa's terminal corpse on life support. So basically half the world is funding usa's debt problems, or at least helping it keep a float by rotating credit. Its like a fission reactor, if you reduce the cooling its going to go thermal fast, ie mega inflation/rates for all.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  121. There by wpiman · · Score: 1
    There has to be some sort of way to harness energy from this.

    Dig a hole into the mantle- drive a hose into the hole- fill it with water- have the steam exiting the hole turn a turbine.

    Build your own geothermal power source. In 50 years- when you build a house- you will have the same guy who digs your well dig you an geothermal power mine.

    I will probably be knocked off tonight by the same Exxon-Mobil hitsquad who capped Diesel.

  122. Might be useful for... by Vexler · · Score: 1

    ...evading all those diggers and sentinels.

  123. Middle Earth? by weighn · · Score: 1
    And inhabited by shape-shifting reptilian aliens

    I don't know about that, but the people of Middle Earth are gonna be very pissed off with this whole thing.

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  124. Still not deeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    than Paris Hiltons.

  125. BANG! by Spacejock · · Score: 1

    Well, what else do you expect when they puncture the skin? All that air's gonna come out in a rush, and we'll be visiting Mars without the benefit of rockets, ships or indeed, spacesuits.

  126. The Undernet? by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

    url:http://www.undernet.org/?

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
  127. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I for one welcome our Jupterian overlords.

  128. Zion found? by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

    AT what point do we punch through into a giant loading dock only to be shot at by hundreds of "free people" who unlike the rest of us are NOT plugged into the Matrix?

  129. Re:is it wise? Absolutely not! by RyatNrrd · · Score: 2, Informative
    It is absolutely stupid: see the BBC's documentaries:

    1

    2

  130. Re:At what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better to spend it on this than on food and medicine for poor people.

  131. Energy Source? by Infinite+Entropy · · Score: 1

    Engineering problems notwithstanding, couldn't a really deep hole be used as a power source? I mean geothermal is used anywhere its practical. This could be used anywhere. Just dig a deep enough hole or two and pump water down them and use the steam to turn turbines. Unless the steam would condense before reaching the surface.

  132. Obl "The Castle" quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dug a hole. It's filling with water.

  133. This sounds like the start... by iced_tea · · Score: 0

    of a Reeeally bad movie.

  134. Re:At what cost? by ElyseMyers · · Score: 1

    Who cares?? Its a small price to pay for science. If geologists want to figure out exactly WHAT'S a the earth's core, let them. I could careless. In either case, an interesting discussion upthread about "artificial" volcanos. It was like my college earth sciences course all over again.

  135. Don't do this! by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 0, Troll
    When they reach the mantle, to all of our surprise, the pressure of the mantle will burst through the crust, similarly to the way the pressure of air inside the stretched rubber of a balloon bursts a big opening in the balloon when a single pin-prick is made. This will create a volcano larger than any which has been observed in past history, resulting in a disaster that will make the 2004 Tsunami look like a splash of dew on the morning grass. Except that instead of fresh, cold seawater, this will be a sulfuric, boiling hot, hellish nightmare the likes of which this world has never seen.

    The moral of the story: Don't try to play God, or you'll have an appointment with the devil. Lord save us.

  136. And only 40 years behind schedule! by ksvh · · Score: 1

    The first time they tried to do this was Project Mohole, which ran from 1958-1965... http://www.nas.edu/history/mohole/

  137. Who would want to live by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 1

    Who would want to live in a subterranean island?!

  138. San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth by kfstark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    3.2 km drilling for seismic research.

    They have finished phase one at 10,000 ft.

    They have been posting news regularly from phase 1

    --keith

  139. How do they do this? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    Seriously, do they just literally get a 50' drill bit with a "stackable" end then attach a new peice and a new peice and so on?

    I'm curious

  140. what the hell is a Moho baby? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Either you misspelled a mofo-baby or you meant to say
    -Dr. Evil is stealing my Moho, baby!

    Yeah?

    1. Re:what the hell is a Moho baby? by crleaf · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it Mojo, not Moho?

  141. Re:First they pearce the crust... by istartedi · · Score: 2, Funny

    No. It could be much worse. They could let the air out of the center of the earth, and it might pop. Even worse, it could jet around the solar system in wild arcs, making farting noises while all the other planets laugh and throw half-eaten cupcakes at eachother.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  142. They might stop the earth's spin by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 2, Funny

    Better watch out! Their experiments might stop the Earth's spin and we'll lose our magnetic fields!!!

  143. is it just me... by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

    ...or shouldn't we solve the problems and help people that live on this planet before we start going inside of it? It just seems like a waste of money.

    1. Re:is it just me... by dadman · · Score: 1

      It is because we could then gain more knowledge about the internal structure and composition of the earth. These information may help better our predictions for earth quakes, or vocano erruptions, for example, and help save some lifes.

    2. Re:is it just me... by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Oh I know... I was just doing the same as some do when there's a space exploration story posted on /..

  144. I'd rather not.. by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

    This introduces energy into the biosphere that would otherwise have stayed below ground. Given that we already have diminished the ability of our planet to rid itself of excess energy through adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, would this really be a good idea?

    I'd rather we trapped energy the earth aborbs from the sun, like solar power, wave power, hydroelectric power etc.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

    1. Re:I'd rather not.. by bronaugh · · Score: 1

      I did the calculations on this one. Energy we add isn't going to do jack, really. Average solar radiation that hits the Earth's surface: 240W/m^2. Assuming albedo of 0.20, we end up with 192W/m^2 being absorbed (and most of that subsequently re-emitted) by the Earth's surface. So now, let's take that and multiply it by the surface of the Earth, in square meters... and we get about 1.0e17 watts, over the Earth's entire surface. Small perturbations of this, on the order of a few tens of trillion watts, will not result in large changes in temperature. (Please take this with a grain of salt; I am not a climate modeller).

      The problem is that when you increase the "greenhouse effect" (increasing atmospheric emissivity) you change the amount of those 1.0e17 watts emitted from Earth that get reflected back. You don't need a *huge* change to make the enormous amount of heat we as humans are generating on Earth look entirely trivial.

      So no, I don't think I'm going to worry about pumping a trillion watts into the atmosphere nearly as much as doubling the CO2 content in the next hundred years. That's going to have a much larger effect. (strangely enough, a doubling in CO2 concentrations is one of the more *conservative* SRES scenarios the IPCC has proposed...)

  145. But what will stop the demons comming out?? by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows the earth is full of demons!

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  146. Re:is it wise? HAWAII!! by thebudgie · · Score: 1

    A prequel to Hawaii 5-0 surely? ;-)

  147. Re:First they pearce the crust... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Or in reverse what if the pressure of the ocean was greater and we open a giant drain in the middle of the atlantic?

    Well, it depends...If the hole was below the equater, all the water would flush in the opposite direction.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  148. Wasn't this already done by... by suman28 · · Score: 1

    Pinky and the Brain The Simpsons? Attempted by Professor Chaos (of South Park fame) among others?

  149. Don't do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drilling a hole in the earth's crust might let the magic smoke out!

  150. Re:is it wise? HAWAII!! by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

    A 'treaty', much like the Bill Gates "buyout" of CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet.

    --
    -mkb
  151. "...Doomsday Device Planted." by adb · · Score: 1

    I can't believe you left out the rest of the headline.

  152. Research this?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on! It's pretty obvious they drilled into a Reptoid neighborhood and everyone down there panicked!

    http://www.reptilianagenda.com/index.shtml

  153. Re:At what cost? by epee1221 · · Score: 1

    As for dealing with the costs, could a hole that deep replace Yucca Mountain?

    --
    "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."