Slashdot Mirror


A Telescope In a Cubic Kilometer of Ice

Roland Piquepaille writes "University of Delaware (UD) scientists and engineers are currently working at the South Pole under very harsh conditions. This research team is one of the many other ones working on the construction of IceCube, the world's largest neutrino telescope in the Antarctic ice, far beneath the continent's snow-covered surface. When it is completed in 2011, the telescope array will occupy a cubic kilometer of Antarctica. One of the lead researchers said that 'IceCube will provide new information about some of the most violent and far-away astrophysical events in the cosmos.' The UD team has even opened a blog to cover this expedition. It will be opened up to December 22, 2008. I guess they want to be back in Delaware for Christmas, but read more for additional details and references, including a diagram of this telescope array built inside ice."

118 comments

  1. Does not look promising by pwnies · · Score: 5, Funny

    I gotta say, just based on personal experience here, that the outlook for this project doesn't look good. The last underground science facility I worked at over in Raccoon City just didn't work out in the long run.

    1. Re:Does not look promising by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dangerous things found in Antarctica:
      'The Thing' (Kurt Russel in a Cowboy hat!)
      The Borg from Star Trek
      Aliens v Predator
      Vicious Penguins

    2. Re:Does not look promising by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      You forgot:

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    3. Re:Does not look promising by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 5, Funny

      Really? The underground science facility I work at over at Black Mesa is more productive than ever. In fact, we're boosting the antimass spectrometer to 105% for a big test tomorrow.

    4. Re:Does not look promising by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1, Informative
      You also forgot:
      • Blind, six-foot penguins
      • Shoggoths
      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    5. Re:Does not look promising by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nobody cares about the Secret Nazi UFO bases anymore :!(

    6. Re:Does not look promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Elder Things

    7. Re:Does not look promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you also get an ancient outpost with a drone chair.

    8. Re:Does not look promising by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Bobo.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    9. Re:Does not look promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, by 2011 global warming will have melted the facility anyway...

    10. Re:Does not look promising by PDX · · Score: 1

      Help I'm melting...!

    11. Re:Does not look promising by rally2xs · · Score: 0

      And they're just as likely to run onto that Aliens vs. Predators playground there, too.

    12. Re:Does not look promising by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2, Funny

      You Black Mesa hotshots get all the fat government contracts. Just you wait til we get GLaDOS out of beta (although, it's been in beta so long you'd think we were Google).

    13. Re:Does not look promising by McWilde · · Score: 1

      Huh? I heard you were out of beta and would be releasing on time...

      That was a joke - haha - fat chance.

      --
      Maybe
    14. Re:Does not look promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..

      kryptonite

    15. Re:Does not look promising by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, who do you think is behind all the nasty stuff that GP listed, eh??

    16. Re:Does not look promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A spare Stargate too.....

    17. Re:Does not look promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  2. Nutrinoes! by Jonah+Bomber · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who doesn't love 'em!

  3. Bullcrap! by cashman73 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, it's a telescope alright! Ha! Ha! I got $500 that says they found a second Stargate down there!

    1. Re:Bullcrap! by philspear · · Score: 0

      Fools! Don't they know it will just interfere with the first stargate?!?

      Er... I mean... starwhat now? Nonsense, we don't have a stargate, and we don't send Macgyver to other planets through it!

    2. Re:Bullcrap! by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not since he let himself go anyway.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Bullcrap! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Does not matter. McGyver can always build another stargate out of a roll of tinfoil, a bowl of vinegar/oil salad sauce, a golden hairpin, and some dust.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:Bullcrap! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Does not matter. McGyver can always build another stargate out of a roll of tinfoil, a bowl of vinegar/oil salad sauce, a golden hairpin, and some dust.

      It was actually a Stargate power amplifier, but yeah.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Christmas massacre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    To be fair, the British members of the team probably don't want to be in Delaware for Christmas. Americans have a history of massacring the British on Christmas in Delaware.

    1. Re:Christmas massacre by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Add to that the fact that the Xmas parties in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UDel are known to suck. Big time.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  5. Cool! by syngularyx · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is exactly what I mean by a really cool thing!

  6. Does Ice Cube approve by line-bundle · · Score: 3, Funny

    Definitely Ice Cube http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Cube won't like it.

    Perhaps time to call in the RIAA and fix this.

    1. Re:Does Ice Cube approve by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ooh, the temptation to alter the wiki pages to say Ice Cube is the spokesperson for the neutrino detector is huge... Must... resist... Vandalism... bad...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  7. South central actually... by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Funny

    Neutrino's with Attitude!

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:South central actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neutrinotude

    2. Re:South central actually... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      What happens if the event that the telescope can observe is coming from the relative northern direction? Maybe we should build one in the Arctic?

    3. Re:South central actually... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IceCube is designed to detect neutrino events only from the northern hemisphere. Neutrinos from the sky in the southern hemisphere get confused with other atmospheric muons events. So they screen out all events coming from above, and only look at those coming from below, i.e. from the north. Neutrinos have no problem passing through the Earth, but all other particles do, so they know that events from below come from neutrinos.

      Still, you can rephrase the question: why don't they build a detector in the Arctic to look for southern events? The only place there's that much land ice is Greenland. There isn't much infrastructure there. There is some already at the South Pole. I suspect that's the reason. But if IceCube proves successful, maybe they'll think about a Greenland version.

    4. Re:South central actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, you can rephrase the question: why don't they build a detector in the Arctic to look for southern events? The only place there's that much land ice is Greenland. There isn't much infrastructure there. There is some already at the South Pole. I suspect that's the reason. But if IceCube proves successful, maybe they'll think about a Greenland version.

      It may also be related to the purity of the ice, and the fact that more telescopes are available in the northern hemisphere. The latter can coordinate
      `standard' light observations, with those exciting neutrino detections.

    5. Re:South central actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there's a similar experiment called ANTARES in the northern hemisphere. Instead of drilling their detector array into the ice, they suspend it in seawater, in the Mediterranean. There are disadvantages to this ... but I guess it worked out to be easier than building one in Greenland.

      Incidentally, I'm part of a (small, speculative) project trying to get an even larger detection volume by using the Moon as a neutrino detector[1]. We're not really competing with IceCube or AMANDA, though - we're looking for rarer, higher-energy neutrinos than they are.

      [1] Details, if you're interested: a neutrino interacts somewhere near the surface of the moon, and produces a particle shower. That shower emits Cherenkov radiation, some of which takes the form of radio waves, which penetrate to the surface, and may be detected on Earth. The current generation of radio telescopes isn't really sensitive enough for it to work, but the next generation should be. The project name is 'Lunaska'.

    6. Re:South central actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neutrino's with

      "Neutrinos".

    7. Re:South central actually... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      The only place there's that much land ice is Greenland. There isn't much infrastructure there. There is some already at the South Pole. I suspect that's the reason. But if IceCube proves successful, maybe they'll think about a Greenland version.

      They'd better hurry...

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  8. The Hardest Part by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is getting the purchase order for a cubic kilometer of gin through the purchasing system.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  9. Ice...for now. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Funny

    By the time it is finished, it will be in a cubic kilometer of water.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:Ice...for now. by gmuslera · · Score: 1, Troll

      I bet in 2015 environmentalists will blame global warming for the extintion of the last ice telescope in the wild.

    2. Re:Ice...for now. by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      I bet in 2015 environmentalists will blame global warming for the extintion of the last ice telescope in the wild.

      My first thought when reading the story is "Where the f*ck are all the environmentalists?"

      It's apparently ok to screw around with a cubic kilometer of ice and wildlife for a telescope, but it's not ok to take up 0.2 kilometers for an oil rig...and notice I didn't say 'square'.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    3. Re:Ice...for now. by textstring · · Score: 2, Informative

      You surely mean 0.92km^3 of water, don't you?

    4. Re:Ice...for now. by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Where the f*ck are all the environmentalists?"

      On ice.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    5. Re:Ice...for now. by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Environmentalists don't really complain about the idea of building one oil rig. Of those who are against, say, ANWR drilling, they mostly complain about building many oil rigs, and all the road and pipeline infrastructure needed to support them. Also, there isn't really any wildlife at the South Pole, other than assorted gnats.

    6. Re:Ice...for now. by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Environmentalists don't really complain about the idea of building one oil rig. Of those who are against, say, ANWR drilling, they mostly complain about building many oil rigs, and all the road and pipeline infrastructure needed to support them. Also, there isn't really any wildlife at the South Pole, other than assorted gnats.

      The size of land they are talking about using in the ANWR has been compared to a postage stamp on a football field.

      No matter what we do, wherever we do it, there will be an impact to the environment, or some species. But we can't stop everything we do because it will effect a frog, or herd of caribou or whatever. On the other hand, we can't be totally irresponsible either.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    7. Re:Ice...for now. by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      Um, so oil rigs are 0.2 kilometers long and have no width?

      And the difference here is impact, very little actually lives IN the ice, so as long as you don't impact the surface or the base of the ice you won't be harming anyone.

      Also, if somehow it exploded all we'd get are shards of ice and pools of water not gigantic oil spills...

      I'm not saying you're wrong*, just that your arguments are.

      *though, incidentally, you are.

    8. Re:Ice...for now. by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      The size of land they are talking about using in the ANWR has been compared to a postage stamp on a football field.

      I am sure it has been compared to that, but is it a correct comparison? I don't know. The right number is "ecological impact", not "land surface area", but it's probably hard to quantify. From a surface area perspective, it should include not only the area taken up by the drilling apparatus, but also by support buildings, roads, pipelines, etc. From a non-areal perspective, it needs to account for the ecosystems affected, including any rare species, distant populations whose migratory pathways may be interrupted by development activity, the effects of any secondary pollution, etc. The EPA does this kind of total system analysis, but I haven't read any of their studies on ANWR.

      No matter what we do, wherever we do it, there will be an impact to the environment, or some species. But we can't stop everything we do because it will effect a frog, or herd of caribou or whatever. On the other hand, we can't be totally irresponsible either.

      That's true.

      You also have to weigh it against the benefit of the action. Drilling in ANWR would make money for oil companies, but the consumer isn't going to see any of that oil within the next decade or two, and it's not going to appreciably affect the price of gas at the pump or reduce dependence on foreign oil. The benefits of ANWR drilling to society as a whole seem somewhat dubious to me. There are very few truly unspoiled wildlife refuges left in the U.S. Is it worth it to develop part of one for limited benefits? That's unclear to me. Of course, the drilling doesn't affect the whole area, but it's yet another encroachment on one of the few remaining protected areas. Of course, drilling does provide more oil and lower prices, but in the grand scheme not much.

    9. Re:Ice...for now. by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Um, so oil rigs are 0.2 kilometers long and have no width?

      I have no clue how big oil rigs are--but I'm betting they aren't 1 sq. kilometer. And about 10 seconds after I posted that, I realized my mistake--for some stupid reason, I was thinking the telescope measurements were cubed, not squared. Totally retarded.

      Also, if somehow it exploded all we'd get are shards of ice and pools of water not gigantic oil spills...

      I don't think you should drive a car. If it suddenly exploded while you were driving, it could impact local wildlife...

      The point I'm trying to make is this--do you know how many oil rigs 'suddenly explode'? And the argument that we shouldn't construct one because it *might* have a problem someday is pretty lame.

      I'm not saying you're wrong*, just that your arguments are.

      *though, incidentally, you are.

      I'll totally admit I screwed up my size argument--but as for my original argument that a telescope and an oil rig are both going to impact the environment, yet the environmentalists aren't bitching about a telescope--well, feel free to prove me wrong instead of just making foot notes*

      *because arguments are resolved by showing facts, not by snide footnotes.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    10. Re:Ice...for now. by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Drilling in ANWR would make money for oil companies, but the consumer isn't going to see any of that oil within the next decade or two

      First off, you make it sound like oil companies earning money is wrong. I don't know about you, but when I start a business, I expect to make money. No one starts a business to lose money.

      Second, Shell is saying the time from start to pumping oil would be less than 6 months. That oil would be on the market in less than a year.

      There are very few truly unspoiled wildlife refuges left in the U.S. Is it worth it to develop part of one for limited benefits? That's unclear to me. Of course, the drilling doesn't affect the whole area, but it's yet another encroachment on one of the few remaining protected areas

      That's true. Personally, I'm all against the federal government setting aside any land for any purpose that isn't in the constitution. Now if the states set it aside, I'd be more comfortable with it. But regardless, I don't want to just bulldoze the grand canyon flat, or level the ANWR either.

      Of course, drilling does provide more oil and lower prices, but in the grand scheme not much.

      I'm just glad the prices are back down. During the peak, it was costing me about $45/week to fill up my car. Now I'm back down to what it cost about 10 years ago $21 a week. I think simply the threat of us drilling scared the Saudi markets into lowering their prices.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    11. Re:Ice...for now. by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      First off, you make it sound like oil companies earning money is wrong. I don't know about you, but when I start a business, I expect to make money. No one starts a business to lose money.

      I'm not saying oil companies earning money is wrong. I'm saying that I don't really care if THEY benefit from the oil. I care if society benefits, and if I benefit. If it makes oil companies richer but not me or the average citizen, then that changes my opinion of the value of the activity. So I have to ask, is the change in oil price that the consumer sees (e.g., in gas prices) worth the drawbacks of the activity? I'm sure if I was an oil executive whose salary depends on oil profits, my cost-benefit analysis would run rather differently.

      Second, Shell is saying the time from start to pumping oil would be less than 6 months. That oil would be on the market in less than a year.

      That disagrees with the studies I've read (e.g., from the DOE), which indicate a decade or so before you see serious market penetration, and the effect on the global price of oil won't amount to much more than tens of cents on a gallon of gas at best lasting maybe 20 years. Maybe more than that right at first, since there's usually a jump due to speculation, then less than that, and perhaps a rise again at the end as it runs out. The oil companies are not hurting for oil right now; they're already sitting on substantial reserves. I'm sure oil companies could rush some of that oil to market to claim that it's making a difference to supply and prices, but the time until it actually makes a difference is maybe rather longer. Also, since it is a global market, it could be the case that OPEC will just release some of their reserves and neutralize the price drop.

      I'm just glad the prices are back down.

      Well, it's nice for my wallet, but I personally would like them to be higher, because I think we need to be reducing fossil fuel consumption, and a price signal is the best way to induce demand destruction. We already saw some of that happen with the recent gas crunch. I'm willing to pay a risk premium.

      I think simply the threat of us drilling scared the Saudi markets into lowering their prices.

      Probably true, but also probably a transient response.

    12. Re:Ice...for now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think simply the threat of us drilling scared the Saudi markets into lowering their prices.

      Then you're not admitting the much more acceptable alternatives of a reduction in speculation due to a credit crunch and a fall in demand due to the recession. The ANWR drilling wouldn't be a speck on OPEC's production.

    13. Re:Ice...for now. by StarkRG · · Score: 1

      I've had this discussion so many times I've come to the conclusion that some people just can't be convinced.

      The reason I think drilling for oil is dumb is because it's an old technology (burning stuff to get the energy out), we really need to move beyond it.

      Asbestos was thought to be the perfect building material, as we've discovered, it is not. Lead was thought to be a great material as it didn't corrode, it was only later we discovered it was highly toxic. Leaded gasoline was considered more environmentally friendly, we increased the lead in the atmosphere a huge amount before we noticed. The same guy who invented leaded gas also invented CFCs, yeah, that worked well...

      What I'm saying is that burning stuff to get the chemical energy out is a very outdated and rather primitive technology (we discovered how to make fire how long ago?) and needs to be replaced by something cleaner, renewable, more efficient, etc.

      I'm sure there ARE environmentalists who think the telescope is a bad idea, just as there were when Cassini was doing a flyby of Earth. I am not one of those as I consider the pursuit of knowledge to be one of the most important things we can do. Obviously I'm not going to suggest we drop a few nukes to get a better understanding of the composition of the planet (which it would do), however as long as the environmental trade-off is relatively small I'm fine with it.

      Now, if you think that digging holes in the ground to get ancient rotted plants to burn is a particularly intelligent idea then that's your prerogative. However it would be good to keep in mind that the most liberal estimates of how much oil is left contain less energy than the Sun provides to the Earth on a daily basis, and we've still got to find it and get it out of the ground.

    14. Re:Ice...for now. by argiedot · · Score: 1

      The Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations for IceCube are available online for free. If you feel that there is something in there that requires attention or if there is something there that people have previously objected to in the case of oil rigs then you really should mention that.

      If you read the full CEE there, you should be able to know why. I suggest you read section 5.3 alone, if the whole document is daunting, since that describes the environmental effects and that section is followed by a description of procedures taken to mitigate those.

      Again, if there is something to complain about, you will have to point it out, and then these environmentalists you speak of will have to explain why they only object to those things when the subject is an oil rig. But asking people to explain why they aren't complaining about something without explaining why they should just makes no sense in my book.

    15. Re:Ice...for now. by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying oil companies earning money is wrong. I'm saying that I don't really care if THEY benefit from the oil. I care if society benefits, and if I benefit.

      That sounds like a great plan. How do I sign up for not lifting a finger all the while benefiting from another human being's labor? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but that's how your statement comes across to me...)

      So I have to ask, is the change in oil price that the consumer sees (e.g., in gas prices) worth the drawbacks of the activity? I'm sure if I was an oil executive whose salary depends on oil profits, my cost-benefit analysis would run rather differently.

      Of course it would differ. An oil company executive (regardless of what he negotiated as a paycheck) is there to support the share holders. Part of my retirement fund invests in 'big oil'. So of course I want them to make a profit. On the other hand, I don't want it to be too much--because then someone will realize it's waay to expensive and come up with a cheaper fuel source, and the oil company loses money, the stock drops, etc...

      That disagrees with the studies I've read (e.g., from the DOE), which indicate a decade or so before you see serious market penetration,

      Who are you going to trust--a bunch of government bureaucrats or the people who actually do the work daily? I think the DOE is complete out of touch--like most government agencies.

      and the effect on the global price of oil won't amount to much more than tens of cents on a gallon of gas at best lasting maybe 20 years. Maybe more than that right at first, since there's usually a jump due to speculation, then less than that, and perhaps a rise again at the end as it runs out.

      I'm not an economist, so I not in any way qualified to comment on how it will effect the fuel prices--but it would appear that a majority of the United States saying "shut up and drill!" caused the Saudis to get their act together and lower prices. That--and the president letting the executive ban on off-shore drilling expire.

      It's like I said in my previous paragraph--if someone is making an obscene profit, people are going to look elsewhere. No one wants to get ripped off. Well, the Saudis jacked the price of oil up so much that the U.S. was starting to give serious consideration of allowing off-shore drilling, drilling in the ANWR, etc... And the Saudis were faced with either making a smaller profit, or making no profit from us at all.

      The oil companies are not hurting for oil right now; they're already sitting on substantial reserves. I'm sure oil companies could rush some of that oil to market to claim that it's making a difference to supply and prices, but the time until it actually makes a difference is maybe rather longer. Also, since it is a global market, it could be the case that OPEC will just release some of their reserves and neutralize the price drop.

      If the global market could have simply released some of their reserves, why didn't they do that during the last year when gas was passing $3.40 a gallon in my area? It doesn't work both ways.

      Plus, there's no reason for the U.S. to be tied to the global market. We don't have to be subject to the whim of middle-eastern countries setting oil prices. Of course that would mean we're subject to U.S. 'big oil' prices. And while you may argue that U.S. 'big oil' would be no better than the Saudi, well, someone can always find a cheaper, better way--or an alternative. That's the beauty of the free market.

      Well, it's nice for my wallet, but I personally would like them to be higher, because I think we need to be reducing fossil fuel consumption, and a price signal is the best way to induce demand destruction. We already saw some of that happen with the recent gas crunch. I'm willing to pay a risk premium.

      The reason we

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    16. Re:Ice...for now. by darkpixel2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've had this discussion so many times I've come to the conclusion that some people just can't be convinced.

      The reason I think drilling for oil is dumb is because it's an old technology (burning stuff to get the energy out), we really need to move beyond it.

      Man, that argument takes the cake.
      You think drilling for oil is dumb because it's an old technology. The first oil well is debated as being sometime around 1820.

      Maybe you also think using a telephone is dumb? Telephone's came about around 1875.

      How about airplanes? 1853. Are they stupid too?

      Sorry--you've lost me. With a dumb statement and logic like that, I can't even bring myself to read the rest of your post--I'd have to punch myself in the face several times just to stay conscious.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    17. Re:Ice...for now. by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      The Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations for IceCube are available online for free. If you feel that there is something in there that requires attention or if there is something there that people have previously objected to in the case of oil rigs then you really should mention that.

      Ok--you called my bluff. I really don't feel like wasting my time reading through a 10 MB PDF. Especially if it's from the NSF. Another dumb government agency that has everything to benefit from saying there are science-type problems which need more study--like oil drilling, global warming, etc... They are not an unbiased agency.

      If you read the full CEE there, you should be able to know why. I suggest you read section 5.3 alone, if the whole document is daunting, since that describes the environmental effects and that section is followed by a description of procedures taken to mitigate those.

      I started reading section 5.2. I gained consciousness a few moments ago at the end of the first paragraph. I won't argue that this has more or less of an impact than an oil rig. That was never my argument.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    18. Re:Ice...for now. by argiedot · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, no no. What I meant was that the question, "Where the f*ck are all the environmentalists?" makes no sense without saying why the environmentalists should be making a fuss.

      I would assume that they read this document, and found the results satisfactory.

      PS: Slashdot strips the <q> tag?

    19. Re:Ice...for now. by argiedot · · Score: 1

      Whoops, my mistake. I did not quite pick up on the tone of your comment the first time around. It is obvious that you won't accept the evaluation of a government agency, since you feel they are biased. In which case, the answer to your question, "Where the fuck are all the environmentalists?" is, "They believe that the NSF CEE is acceptable, and they believe that the NSF is credible."

    20. Re:Ice...for now. by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      How do I sign up for not lifting a finger all the while benefiting from another human being's labor?

      You're totally missing the point. I didn't say that I wanted to get rich off their oil and let them have nothing. I said that I don't support drilling if the oil companies get rich but nobody ELSE benefits. If they drill in ANWR and the average citizen doesn't see any large lasting impact on prices, and we don't seriously reduce our dependence on foreign oil from it, why is this a good idea compared to its drawbacks?

      Who are you going to trust--a bunch of government bureaucrats or the people who actually do the work daily?

      I would trust the DOE over an oil company any day when it comes to this sort of analysis. They're not stupid and they're relatively neutral. Of course the oil companies have a huge incentive to say that drilling is going to make a huge difference to everybody, there's no delay and no possible downside, gas prices will drop in half and we'll never buy a drop of foreign oil again, and so on.

      I'm not an economist, so I not in any way qualified to comment on how it will effect the fuel prices--but it would appear that a majority of the United States saying "shut up and drill!" caused the Saudis to get their act together and lower prices. That--and the president letting the executive ban on off-shore drilling expire.

      They can make a temporary big drop in prices to get us to abandon the plan — even take a temporary loss, if the want — but if we went through with it, the actual sustained drop would likely be much less. ANWR drilling would cause prices to drop and OPEC to lose some money, but it's not going to make even a large difference to the price of gas because the supply isn't big enough.

      If the global market could have simply released some of their reserves, why didn't they do that during the last year when gas was passing $3.40 a gallon in my area?

      It wasn't yet sufficiently profitable for them to do so. They benefit from higher prices, as long as global (not just U.S.) demand doesn't drop too low. ANWR oil is simply a drop in the bucket compared to the global oil supply. It can affect prices, but not hugely. OPEC ultimately did release some of their reserves, as a chess piece. They're not the only ones who could, but they have the largest supply so they can afford to do so first.

      Furthermore, there are plenty of other non-ANWR reserves that haven't yet been exploited, but could be. IIRC, the U.S. oil industry has 30-40 billion barrels of offshore oil on sites that they haven't yet developed.

      Plus, there's no reason for the U.S. to be tied to the global market.

      Right now and for some time to come, economically, there is. U.S. oil production peaked decades ago for a reason. The global supply is simply larger and longer lasting, and we haven't sufficiently developed any alternatives.

      And while you may argue that U.S. 'big oil' would be no better than the Saudi, well, someone can always find a cheaper, better way--or an alternative.

      Oil companies already invest tons of money in finding better, cheaper ways. It's not like there's no market pressure to do that.

      The reason we are sticking with fossil fuels at the moment, is they are the best choice all around. It's cheaper to produce, it provides more power, it's easily transportable, etc... Once a fuel shows up that beats that, people will start switching.

      The economic incentives to switching are wrong, because fossil fuels are cheaper than they should be: the market doesn't account for negative externalities like the environmental impact of CO2 emissions, costs of foreign conflict, etc. Fossil fuels have hidden costs and the market needs to be aware of them. Consumers don't have the right price signal to switch.

      Right now, if

    21. Re:Ice...for now. by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      They are not an unbiased agency.

      You're hilarious.

  10. Big Science by QuantumG · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I know I'm ignorant, but I just don't understand how physicists managed to get from the Manhattan project to here. Yes, the Manhattan project showed that if you put great minds together they can achieve great things.. but that was in war time.. and for weapons development. How did the lab coats manage to convince the bean counters that the same thing was possible in peace time.. and for pure science no less? And how come it's always physics physics physics? And mostly, telescopes? If someone goes to the NSF and asks for billions to build a really big computer to do AI research on, the NSF tells them to go talk to IBM. Where's the IBM of telescopes? Even when it comes to rockets the big contractors are not expected to wear the cost of development (cost-plus contracts being an abomination, but at least it gets shit done), but if you wanna do basic science in compsci on decent hardware, you have to go work for a corp research lab.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Big Science by Ambitwistor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And how come it's always physics physics physics?

      That's the science where you have to build the biggest equipment, because big equipment is needed to study the extremely small or the extremely large (particle physics and astronomy).

      Biomedicine/genomics is slowly starting to encroach on physics in terms of Big Science. But there is also tons of science which is not Big Science.

      And mostly, telescopes?

      Telescopes and particle accelerators. See above.

      If someone goes to the NSF and asks for billions to build a really big computer to do AI research on, the NSF tells them to go talk to IBM.

      The NSF mostly funds science (national Science foundation). Computer science doesn't get as much of a priority with them, since it's more mathematics/engineering.

      Also, with a billion-dollar particle accelerator, people are likely to discover new fundamental things about the universe we live in. With a billion-dollar computer, can we guarantee any breakthroughs in AI? I don't know that hardware is the limiting factor here.

    2. Re:Big Science by fenodyree · · Score: 1

      Suppose you have bills, bills, bills to pay. It would be optimal for the future (ie, your credit rating) to get them paid. Now, imagine some random guys, really rich guys, are willing to pay some of the bills for you, leaving you to only pay for a few bills the rich guys won't pony up for. What are you going to do?

      Not particularly interesting actually, simple dollars and sense, perhaps it does not sit well that you might have to work for the evil industry, with all their "agendas", but it gets the job done. Tech moves along pretty well for no government funding.

    3. Re:Big Science by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      big equipment is needed to study the extremely small or the extremely large (particle physics and astronomy)

      I should clarify that this is certainly not always the case: there is a lot of astronomy and even particle physics that you can still do without enormous resources. But there are some things that just require giant experiments, because of the scale of the problem.

    4. Re:Big Science by rcw-home · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where's the IBM of telescopes?

      That's kinda like asking "Where's the IBM of marble sculpture?"

      You can mass-produce ICs. If you've found a way to mass-produce large parabolic or hyperbolic wavelength-accurate mirrors, well, you should definitely submit that one to Slashdot, OK?

    5. Re:Big Science by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Probably because if you went to NSF and said "I could make a breakthrough in AI research, if only I had a powerful enough computer", they would (most likely correctly) not believe you. If you go to them and said "I could make a breakthrough in astrophysics, if only I had a big enough neutrino detector", they would.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Big Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not particularly interesting actually, simple dollars and *cents*, perhaps it does not sit well that you might have to work for the evil industry, with all their "agendas", but it gets the job done.

      Fixed that for you.

    7. Re:Big Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because physics is a science and computation is a joke.

    8. Re:Big Science by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      The Department of Energy is a major source of government funding for big computer systems. There are others, but I believe they're the largest.

    9. Re:Big Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how come it's always physics physics physics? And mostly, telescopes? If someone goes to the NSF and asks for billions to build a really big computer to do AI research on, the NSF tells them to go talk to IBM. Where's the IBM of telescopes? Even when it comes to rockets the big contractors are not expected to wear the cost of development (cost-plus contracts being an abomination, but at least it gets shit done), but if you wanna do basic science in compsci on decent hardware, you have to go work for a corp research lab.

      Just figure out some military applications and I'm sure you can get all the funding you want.

      As it stands, the Department of War... er... i mean Defense, funds something like 40% of all university research. I'm sure plenty of astronomers want to think of a way to hop on that gravy train.

    10. Re:Big Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can mass-produce ICs. If you've found a way to mass-produce large parabolic or hyperbolic wavelength-accurate mirrors, well, you should definitely submit that one to Slashdot, OK?

      I think it has something to do with ?????

    11. Re:Big Science by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      You can mass-produce ICs. If you've found a way to mass-produce large parabolic or hyperbolic wavelength-accurate mirrors, well, you should definitely submit that one to Slashdot, OK?

      Well, come to think of it, you probably could take a silicon wafer and etch it into a Fresnel mirror. Of course, this would be a very expensive mirror, and only about 12 inches in diameter maximum.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
  11. important safety tip: by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't take in stray sled dogs from nearby camps. Shoot them before they can get close to your camp, then burn the bodies. I'm just sayin'...

    1. Re:important safety tip: by spsheridan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My understanding is that The Thing is required viewing at the start of each Winter Season at the South Pole research station - if you think about who actually would spend a winter at the south pole I think you can see why they would be all over this kind of thing.

  12. Not a telescope. by Annymouse+Cowherd · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is a neutrino detector. It is not a telescope. It works by detecting electrons or muons created when neutrinos hit the surrounding ice.

    1. Re:Not a telescope. by spsheridan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I guess a telescope isn't a telescope, it's a light detector. It detects light that hits it mirrors...

      These neutrino telescopes work by detecting Cherenkov Radiation created by the collision by-products and then determining the track of the particle that is emmiting the Cherenkov Radiation. The momentum of the original Neutrino is conserved so the track of the by-product is very close to the original trajectory.

      You filter out downward tracks because they are generally caused by atmospheric cosmic radiation - the earth is basically your filter here, only neutrino's will be coming up through the earth. It's called a telescope because they hope to be able to correlate neutrino tracks with actual stellar objects - once the detector is large enough (hence the cubic kilometer size) there should be a sufficient cross section of matter to have a regular set of interactions from persistent neutrino sources.

      This is an extension of the AMANDA research project, they drilled the original series of test holes in the 90's to prove the process would work - I helped build some of the detector equipment back in Wisconsin while I was an undergrad there.

    2. Re:Not a telescope. by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      And a CCD pixel is just a photon detector ....

      But if you have enough of them and the geometrey is right, you can reconstruct where they cam from and develop an image. I'd say this is a telescope too, just not an optical one.

    3. Re:Not a telescope. by emmons · · Score: 1

      And not led by UD. Wisconsin gets credit for this one: http://icecube.wisc.edu/

      --
      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
    4. Re:Not a telescope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These neutrino telescopes work by detecting Cherenkov Radiation created by the collision by-products and then determining the track of the particle that is emmiting the Cherenkov Radiation.

      True for muons, but electrons don't travel very far in the ice due to their small rest masses. They basically produce a cascade of secondary particles at the point of interaction, which looks like a blob of light to the photomultiplier tubes. The GZK neutrinos should make pretty large looking events that will light up nearly every string.

      IceCube should be able to detect a number of different particles (monopoles etc), but not all of these cause tracks through the ice.

      I am currently working with the IceCube Collaboration.

    5. Re:Not a telescope. by kwikrick · · Score: 1

      sure it is:

      tele = far
      scope = see

      it detects (sees) events taking place far away.

      Although Wikipedia defines a telescope as:

      "an instrument designed for the observation of remote objects by the collection of electromagnetic radiation"

      I suppose neutrinos are not technically electromagnetic radiation.

      --
      assignment != equality != identity
  13. Nut gallery oddly subued by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why aren't the enviros screaming that the telescope is somehow going to destroy a fragile ecosystem and lead to extinction of one or more endangered species, a la ANWR?

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    1. Re:Nut gallery oddly subued by againjj · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's nothing there. ANWR actually has wildlife.

    2. Re:Nut gallery oddly subued by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Maybe because your stereotyping of "enviros" is pure BS.

  14. Literally... by bughunter · · Score: 1

    Scintillating!

    --
    I can see the fnords!
    1. Re:Literally... by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, you've mistaken Slashdot for a place frequented by educated people. Your humor sits alone in the dark...

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    2. Re:Literally... by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Is that a fnord in your sig?

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  15. Not just U Delaware by dlenmn · · Score: 1

    This is a huge project with a long list of collaborating organizations http://www.icecube.wisc.edu/collaboration/collaborators.php. I know there's a large number of Ice Cube folks here at U Wisconsin-Madison.

    The scale of the project really is something. Neutrinos interact with other matter very infrequently -- something on the order of 60 billion neutrinos pass through you each second, and you probably never noticed. They need such a large volume so that they can see a reasonable number of interactions. It's crazy stuff.

  16. The northern counterpart by againjj · · Score: 1

    Apparently there is a northern counterpart to this: ANTARES, though the article on Km3net says that that is a pilot project for Km3net.

  17. The Thing - 50s vs 80s by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    Whilst we're on the topic, I have actually seen both the original from the 50s and the John Carpenter version, and do yourself a favour - if you ever get curious about the 50s version, don't. Seriously, just don't. A perfect example of, "What has been seen cannot be UNseen."

    Instead, go on a John Carpenter binge and watch 'Prince of Darkness' and 'Big Trouble in Little China,' and save yourself a lot of grief while being vastly entertained.

    1. Re:The Thing - 50s vs 80s by ErkDemon · · Score: 1
      Yep, in the 1950 version, the constant stream of clever-clever snappy machine-gun-delivery "Howard Hawks" dialogue is distracting. You shouldn't be watching a horror film and being reminded of Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant in "Bringing up Baby"! It's kinda like you're watching Alien, but with constant additional dialogue by Carl Sagan and Groucho Marx.

      "An intellectual carrot! The mind boggles."
      Hmm.

      I guess with the 1950's version, you either watch it with the sound almost down, or you forget about the horror aspect and just concentrate on the dialogue (as an amusing historical curiosity), and listen out for the double-entendre smutty bits.

      The 1980s version made me jump when the hot wire went into the petri dish.

  18. Yes, not a telescope. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    A telescope collects light or other radiation passing through a large aperture and forms an image. This neither concentrates the neutrinos nor forms an image.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  19. Delawhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm from Delaware and I don't want to go back for Christmas! Even Antartica is probably a step up...

  20. Liquidation by jassa · · Score: 1

    So, how long will they have to use this thing before global warming causes it to start melting?

    1. Re:Liquidation by emmons · · Score: 1

      A very long time.

      --
      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  21. IceCube? Violence? by therufus · · Score: 5, Funny

    'IceCube will provide new information about some of the most violent and far-away astrophysical events in the cosmos.'

    So NWA have a new album out? O.o

    --
    You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    1. Re:IceCube? Violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So NWA have a new album out? O.o

      Nerds With Attitude: Straight Outta Caltech

    2. Re:IceCube? Violence? by xtremee · · Score: 1

      I didn't read TFA but let me guess: This "IceCube" telescope is being built by Doctor Dre, funded by an Arabian Prince and it should be Eazy-E.

      Yella(t) your friends about this, looks pretty cool.

    3. Re:IceCube? Violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, it's titled "Neutrinoz4Life"

  22. Re:You're gonna want ice after practicing THIS: by xonar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh My God

    Wait...

    Oh my god...

    *holds self*

  23. I was there last year by HoneyBeeSpace · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was there last year. For some pics of the detectors and the hot water drill used to lower the detector strings see http://spacebit.org/v/places/Antarctica/SouthPole

    The drill seems straight out of Austin Powers or Bond for drilling into the core of the earth.

    The visualization software (image above) was running on Linux FYI.

    1. Re:I was there last year by dafz1 · · Score: 1

      I work with the engineers who built the TWO drill heads(UW Physical Sciences Lab). The one in your picture is the Firn drill, which "drills" (really melts) it's way through the first 50 feet of snow. The cooler drill is the enhanced hot water drill, which uses hot water to blast through the ice to a depth of 2,400 meters. The reason for two separate drills is the hot water drill isn't efficient at going through the firn layer, as the water seeps away. Also, having two drills greatly reduces drilling time because the firn drill can start another hole while the hot water drill is drilling through the ice.

      To learn more about the drills, the Digital Optical Modules(DOM), they detect the neutrinos(most were also built at PSL), see this page.

    2. Re:I was there last year by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      You have to admit that the Firn drill is cooler looking, though.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  24. Obligatory by rdnetto · · Score: 1

    And how come it's always physics physics physics?

    http://xkcd.com/435/

    --
    Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  25. no sexual harrassment in the antarctic? by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1

    your link mentions naked ladies, a sauna, and sub zero temperatures... How exactly does one get a job in one of these research facilities?

  26. i doubt anyone will get this ... but what the heck by gravisan · · Score: 1

    you can do it put your back into it!

  27. Re:i doubt anyone will get this ... but what the h by Canazza · · Score: 1

    put your ass in to it... I spend 6 months being forced to listen to that tripe on the office radio... and I hate you for bringing it up. i'd +funny if i could :)

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  28. Beware of Deep Ones by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Funny

    A word of advice: If you wake any squid-headed star-spawned monstrosity deep beneath the mountains of madness, run.

    1. Re:Beware of Deep Ones by Craftybegonia · · Score: 1

      Very interesting stuff. I hope Beware of Deep Ones is just kidding.

  29. Deep, man. by famebait · · Score: 1

    This research team is one of the many other ones

    Whoah, we're talking seriously reality-twisting science here.

    --
    sudo ergo sum
  30. -40F, that's it? by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    I thought they said it was cold? It was -38F when I left for work this morning. Check out the weather for Winnipeg Canada @ http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/camb0244 Note: -40F =-40C and 1C ~ 1.5F.

    1. Re:-40F, that's it? by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Yeah -- but its summer down at the South Pole right now!

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    2. Re:-40F, that's it? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Of course they said it was cold. Every newsie knows that you have to whoop about the cold when writing about Antarctica, no matter how irrelevant the weather is to the story.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  31. Military uses? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    If this thing has decent angular resolution, I bet the military is looking at this very closely. The super-Kamiokande (or was it the Sudbury) neutrino detector was able to 'see' operating reactors from their neutrino flux. How cool would it be to be able to detect and get a fix on rogue reactors and nuclear subs?

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  32. But assuming we manage that... by David+Gould · · Score: 1
    --
    David Gould
    main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}