Slashdot Mirror


Polar Robots to Explore the Arctic

Roland Piquepaille writes "It's now almost certain that the world's ice shelves are melting. And while satellites provide lots of data about their evolution, ground-based weather stations could be even more useful. But if scientists can no longer stay on fragile and volatile ice sheets, what can they do? They can use specially designed robots called SnoMotes developed by U.S. researchers. 'The SnoMotes work as a team, autonomously collaborating among themselves to cover all the necessary ground to gather assigned scientific measurements.' More importantly, a SnoMote is an 'expendable rover that wouldn't break a research team's bank if it were lost during an experiment,' according to the lead researcher." Reader coondoggie adds a link to another story on these robots at Network World.

2 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. Expendable? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More importantly, a SnoMote is an 'expendable rover that wouldn't break a research team's bank if it were lost during an experiment,' according to the lead researcher."
    So, when the battery gives out or the unit breaks down they are just going to leave these things out in the environment like garbage? Plastic and old batteries? Is this a good idea?
    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  2. "Almost certain"??? by Snocone · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's now almost certain that the world's ice shelves are melting

    Funny, that's not what the actual facts show. We're at the highest ever recorded ice cover in the Southern Hemisphere right now:

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_plot.html

    which already more than balances out the Northern Hemisphere's recent decline,

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/n_plot.html

    and now that the PDO has entered a cool phase,

    http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

    it's as certain as anything to do with climate is that you're going to see that trend smartly reverse itself as well.

    Soooooo ... only for some value of "certain" which equates to "certainly not" is that a defensible statement, methinks.