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."

Comments

Big Science

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:Big Science

[Ambitwistor]

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.

Re:Ice...for now.

[darkpixel2k]

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.