Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Antarctic's First Plane, Found In Ice

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the ice-tractor-cometh dept.

Science 110

Arvisp writes "In 1912 Australian explorer Douglas Mawson planned to fly over the southern pole. His lost plane has now been found. The plane – the first off the Vickers production line in Britain – was built in 1911, only eight years after the Wright brothers executed the first powered flight. For the past three years, a team of Australian explorers has been engaged in a fruitless search for the aircraft, last seen in 1975. Then on Friday, a carpenter with the team, Mark Farrell, struck gold: wandering along the icy shore near the team's camp, he noticed large fragments of metal sitting among the rocks, just a few inches beneath the water."

cancel ×

110 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

boobs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654282)

boobs

I claim the movie rights (4, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654284)

And inside they found a pipe in a keg of gun powder that had a pipe with clues that mean that there is a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence.

Re:I claim the movie rights (3, Funny)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654548)

I'll claim rights on a second story and write the one that has the pilot still sitting in the cockpit with his chest blown out. And several miles below the ice surface there's a temple that's a home to aliens that another alien race comes in to exterminate after the expedition team frees them.

Re:I claim the movie rights (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654720)

I'll claim rights on a second story and write the one that has the pilot still sitting in the cockpit with his chest blown out.

How about something original. Like a story about how its not a plane but an alien spacecraft carrying an extraterrestrial shapechanging parasite that begins killing off staff at a Antarctica research base.

Re:I claim the movie rights (2, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654882)

Actually, they found traces of an ancient race of tentacled aliens that were ultimately responsible for creating us. Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

Re:I claim the movie rights (2, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30655238)

Actually, they found traces of an ancient race of tentacled aliens that were ultimately responsible for creating us. Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

So, you're saying I should not have fried up that batch of giant calamari?

Re:I claim the movie rights (2, Funny)

sayno2quat (1651749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30660650)

You would have been fine, except you didn't post anonymously.

Cue the pissing contest (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654366)

I have a funny feeling this "Antarctic's First Plane" thing started when an American dared point out that the first plane to fly in Antarctica was the "Stars and Stripes" (built by the legendary Sherman Farchild [wikipedia.org] , and one of his pioneering aerial surveys). Then, as is always the case when an American dares claim a "first" in anything, hundreds of Europeans, Canadians, Australians, etc. with inferiority complexes immediately rushed out and found an obscure case of someone *shipping* a plane to Antarctica before this (which never actually flew), so they could once again show those big-shot Americans that their dicks were bigger.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654472)

And Americans, always wanting to show they have the biggest dicks, must bitch about the idea of the "Antarctic's First Plane" by stating it's not "Antarctic's First Flight".

Re:Cue the pissing contest (3, Funny)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654612)

We get tired of the competition between Ohio and North Carolina for the origin vs. actually flying the first plane so we have to look elsewhere to pick fights.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (-1, Troll)

soapdog (773638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30656070)

santos dummont flied the first plane... not the americans... calling the flyer from wright brothers the first plane when it required a machine to aid it's launch is bad, it's like claiming you build the first car but it worked only on a downhill road. 14-Bis airplane could launch on its own but since was invented by a Brazillian, it is not credited... Yes the Flyer could fly for a longer period, but it is as if I made a paper plane and use my hand to throw it, heck, it is a soaring plane or something, yes it can fly but what is more of an accomplishment the paper plane that fly longer when thrown by a human hand or the paper plane that can take off on it's own, that was the hard part! Eventually the wright brothers figured out how to make the Flyer take off on it's own but this was after Santos Dummont show on Paris. So we were there first! Not to mention santos dummont airships and shower gizmos which were also cool

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

cawpin (875453) | more than 4 years ago | (#30656440)

calling the flyer from wright brothers the first plane when it required a machine to aid it's launch is bad, it's like claiming you build the first car but it worked only on a downhill road.

So I guess all those things that get chucked off of aircraft carriers aren't planes either then?

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

soapdog (773638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30656832)

well... can they take off on their own given enough distance? They are only chucked off because the air craft carrier is not long enough for them to achieve the speed they need, they can take off fine from an airstrip, so they are airplanes that don't require catapults... now, put wright brothers "the flyer" on a airstrip with no wind and tell it to take off, it won't happen.

By the way, the 1903 flight of wright brothers was contested by one of the witnessess, the telegraph operator said that on that day the plane only glided and their patent shows their plane to contain no motor, so without motors, can it take off? NO! it is a gliding plane, good for soaring, not an airplane since it can't take off, fly and land on it's own. Now, the 14-bis could take off, fly and land on its own two years before the wrigt brothers perfected their plane.

Before complaining, use some common sense, those fighters launched with catapults from aircraft carriers are full aircrafts that don't require that gizmo. The flyer is just a glider.

americans think they need to invent everything... I feel sad for them.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (2, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30657330)

well... can they take off on their own given enough distance? They are only chucked off because the air craft carrier is not long enough for them to achieve the speed they need, they can take off fine from an airstrip, so they are airplanes that don't require catapults... now, put wright brothers "the flyer" on a airstrip with no wind and tell it to take off, it won't happen.

Why does it matter? Since when does the definition of airplane include the mandatory condition that it be able to take off under its own power? You said it yourself -- they are airplanes that don't require catapults. That is not synonymous with "airplane".

If an F-14 had all the capabilities it has in reality once in the air, but required a catapult, would you say it's not an airplane?

Large military cargo airplanes, the kind that transport tanks, require rocket boosters to actually take off when fully loaded. Are they not airplanes? Or only when empty?

Is Spaceship One not a rocket plane because it is launched from the White Knight carrier?

Before complaining, use some common sense, those fighters launched with catapults from aircraft carriers are full aircrafts that don't require that gizmo. The flyer is just a glider.

Uh... Common Sense says that a glider is something that does not fly under its own power. The definition (common sense and otherwise) of "gliding" is "unpowered flight". The Wright Flyer, once airborne, flew under its own power. Ergo it is obviously not a glider.

It was an airplane that required assistance to take off. It was an airplane with a significant technological limitation. That does not mean it was not an airplane.

americans think they need to invent everything... I feel sad for them.

Maybe, but that doesn't excuse you trying to undo a legitimate case with this terrible logic. Americans did invent some things, trying to prove that was never the case is equally sad.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30657556)

You do realize that the Wright Brothers' plane was not the first airplane invented, right? There were other airplanes before them, which successfully flew (I think some of them were French). The problem was, the earlier planes took off, flew in a straight line some distance, and crashed. The Wright Brothers' plane was the first to master turning. Only an idiot would claim the WB invented the first airplane; what they invented was the first airplane that could actually maneuver.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

soapdog (773638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30658096)

That is a good case and we can agree that in 1908 the thing could maneuver well. Now, go ask joe six pack who invented the first airplane and guess what will his answer be.

The Flyer was a capable glider, but still, claiming it as first airplane as the most americans do is silly. Heck Santos Dummont even won the prize for making the first dirigible that could be actually controlled, which he took to circle the eiffel tower, still we don't claim he invented the dirigibles.

If the americans claimed that "hey, wright brothers invented the first glider that could do figures of eight", that would be fine and an achivement, what pisses us off is that people claim they invented the frecking airplane!!!

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30658400)

Again, the Flyer was powered with a gasoline engine IIRC. A powered heavier-than-air machine is an "airplane", not a "glider". It doesn't matter if it requires ground-based infrastructure to launch. So yes, they invented the first airplane that could do figures of eight.

As for Joe Sixpack, he's a moron who probably also believes the Earth is 6500 years old and that Sarah Palin would be a good President even though she thinks Africa is a country (or, he's a moron who thinks Barack Obama is a great President who's going to keep his union job secure). What he thinks about who invented the first airplane is irrelevant to anyone with an education.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (2, Insightful)

jc42 (318812) | more than 4 years ago | (#30658544)

You do realize that the Wright Brothers' plane was not the first airplane invented, right? ... The Wright Brothers' plane was the first to master turning. Only an idiot would claim the WB invented the first airplane; ...

Actually, arguments like this are really just an artifact of the common desire to reduce everything to a bumper-sticker-like slogan. The reality is, as usual, that "the airplane" wasn't invented out of nothing by some single person or team. The real story is more interesting. Powered flight was the result of a century or so of development, in which a large number of people scattered around the globe (but mostly in North America and Europe ;-) figured out parts of the puzzle, learned from each other, built things that did something slightly better than before, etc. Finally, in the early decades of the 20th century, they managed to build flying things that were actually practical transport tools.

But any decent history of flight will list a lot of people and their achievements. The Wright brothers' achievement is yet another case of "standing on the shoulders of giants". Any claim that "the airplane" was invented by one person/team at one place is utterly bogus.

Of course, one of the first things to be transported by air in quantity were bombs, as we might expect from briefly skimming the history of human technology.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30658974)

Any claim that "the airplane" was invented by one person/team at one place is utterly bogus.

Exactly. The Wrights only invented a way of bending the wings to enable controlled maneuvering. Other people had already invented propellers, the basic wing shape, etc.

The thing I think is really bogus, however, is the State of Ohio constantly trying to claim they're "first in flight" (like on the new quarters), just because the Wright Brothers, and some astronauts, were born there. Big deal. That just shows that Ohio sucks, since the Wrights had to move all the way to North Carolina to find a place suitable for testing and developing their airplane. Is this the only thing in their history that that stupid state can find to claim as an achievement? That some famous people were born there, and then left for other places to do their interesting and historical work? Absolutely pathetic.

Main base - Ohio (1)

geek2k5 (882748) | more than 4 years ago | (#30661948)

The Wright Brothers were based in Ohio when they started the experiments that lead to the flights at Kitty Hawk. They frequently returned to Ohio to do additional research. Kitty Hawk was 'just' the place that had the right conditions to test their theories because they were pushing the limits of technology at the time.

In 1904, after the Kitty Hawk flights, they improved on the design, with Flyer II and Flyer III. Those were flown out of a base in Ohio. These flights were measured in minutes and miles as opposed to the seconds and feet of the Kitty Hawk flights.

Sure they left Ohio to do the 'first' powered flights. But they returned to Ohio to improve upon that 'first' and accomplish a whole bunch of other firsts.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#30658038)

americans think they need to invent everything... I feel sad for them.

We Americans also invented pity, so stop trying to use our own inventions against us.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654634)

Which is exactly why we should end this "first" bullshit in the first place (no pun intended). The fact is that most great accomplishments in history are the result of the hard work of a lot of people working together, on the backbone of the work of generations of predecessors, spurned by the occasional advances of individual brilliant minds, and rarely limited to any one country. Both the Australian plane and the American one were built on the work of the Wright Brothers, whose three-axis control innovation was also dependent on decades of glider innovations an developments in the internal combustion engine needed to build an actual working plane (developments which spanned the continents).

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654960)

If we get rid of "firsts", patents would be pointless, recognition would be negligible, and China would probably take over the world... or whoever has the cheapest labor. That would start a spiral that we probably don't want to be a part of. "Firsts" inspire people to compete, giving us all better things.

(This is, of course, my armchair economics with no real backing...)

Re:Cue the pissing contest (3, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30655292)

Which is exactly why we should end this "first" bullshit in the first place.

First Post!

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30657502)

Which is exactly why we should end this "first" bullshit in the first place

Yes, and Europe did it first! ~

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 4 years ago | (#30657308)

I have the biggest dick so you can pretty much end it here :)

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

MrFrank (261142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30658556)

That's not what your wife told me. Sorry couldn't resist, but neither could she.

Right, we're already drowning in "piss" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654534)

Actually no one was doing anything of the sort until you decided to start the pissing.

Re:Right, we're already drowning in "piss" (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 4 years ago | (#30661006)

Um, excuse me? Everyone knows Americans were the first to piss. You jealous or something?

Re:Cue the pissing contest (2, Interesting)

fremsley471 (792813) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654556)

This European is always astonished how Alcock and Brown's achievement of 1919 is so overshadowed by Lindbergh's 1927 flight. Perhaps that's one of the sources of resentment that lead to 'pissing contests'?

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654772)

Would you feel better if we parsed it with "between America and *mainland* Europe"?

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

fremsley471 (792813) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654942)

So who was the first to fly from mainland America to mainland Europe? Lindbergh took off from the island of Manhattan... :)

When we get to ideas of 'mainland' or 'solo' into events rather than simply crossing a vast ocean, well, where do we stop? When the first person arrives on the moon solo, and one looks forward to that hell of an achievement, will they upstage Armstrong and Aldrin?

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30656506)

So who was the first to fly from mainland America to mainland Europe? Lindbergh took off from the island of Manhattan... :)

Although still on an island, Roosevelt Field [wikipedia.org] was on Long Island, not Manhattan.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30657334)

Still considered mainland America though since its a barrier island, unlike say Hawaii.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30658328)

Manhattan is an island too.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30658750)

Reading comprehension ftw.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30659024)

No Autopilots back then. Difficult plane to fly as well. A solo crossing was in fact much more difficult than a team crossing. If you can't figure that out then I will just believe that you have figured it out (since no one can possibly be that fucking stupid) and have decided to ignore that fact so you can be a true anti American.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (3, Interesting)

heck (609097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654774)

This European is always astonished how Alcock and Brown's achievement of 1919 is so overshadowed by Lindbergh's 1927 flight. Perhaps that's one of the sources of resentment that lead to 'pissing contests'?

Because Lindbergh was the first to do it solo

And Alcock and Brown weren't the first to make the flight over the Atlantic, although they were the first to do a non-stop. The crew of the NC-4 did it first (but they used more than one aircraft) Alcock and Brown did have balls - climbing out on the wings to chip off the ice as they flew.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 4 years ago | (#30659962)

Damn - no karma.

Somehow the "solo" bit was missed by the GP.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30655578)

This American is also.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

fooslacker (961470) | more than 4 years ago | (#30655598)

I think the American argument would be it doesn't count if you crash land in a bog at the end...even if you don't die. Still chipping ice off manually in flight is pretty damn impressive.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

bigdavex (155746) | more than 4 years ago | (#30655388)

An Aussie [wikipedia.org] first flew across Pacific; I'd think that should be sufficient for bragging rights.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

clemdoc (624639) | more than 4 years ago | (#30656060)

A pissing contest around the south pole? Who's the first to freeze off his b*lls?

Re:Cue the pissing contest (-1, Troll)

Kabuthunk (972557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30656128)

I don't think so. Generally, if anyone wants to be seen as 'better' than the USA, all we'd need to do is point out that "they're americans"

At which point of course, once the laughter dies down, victory is defaulted to anyone not from the USA.

PSST! In case you haven't noticed guys, the USA is the laughing stock of the world... kinda like the big, retarded kid that things everyone is laughing WITH him. We're not.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30656530)

Yeah, and also like the big retarded kid, piss him off too much and he will beat the dogshit out of you.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30657058)

True enough. However, this can also be easily avoided by pointing anywhere we don't like and shouting either "terrorist", "child porn", "illegal downloading", or any of the other magic words, and point at anywhere we don't like.

Amusingly enough, pointing straight back at the USA seems to work quite well.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30657558)

Next time you get a hitler over there, we'll let him kick your ass hard. you owe your very life to us.

You'd be speaking german or Russian (more likely they would have over everything.)

Stupid europeans, forget who saves their ass at every war.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30656776)

so they could once again show those big-shot Americans that their dicks were bigger. Us big-shot Americans don't need to be shown that our dicks are bigger; we already know!

Re:Cue the pissing contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30659922)

so they could once again show those big-shot Americans that their dicks were bigger. Us big-shot Americans don't need to be shown that our dicks are bigger; we already know!

History is a long series of pissing matches over who is the biggest dick.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30660548)

Not modern history! Now, what was that about the new Burj Dubai/Burj Khalifa tower opening again? Do you think Mr. Khalifa is maybe compensating for something?

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 4 years ago | (#30657294)

Except that in 1912 Americans were pretty much mostly Europeans. And I don't recall American Indians flying over Antarctica

Re:Cue the pissing contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30657364)

1) Why, pray, do US-Americans then (at least in your view) constantly claim "first this!" and "first that!"? That arguably seems like the more compelling evidence for an inferiority complex: constantly inventing new reasons why you are better than everyone else.

2) If these claims actually do turn out to be false, why is it not justified for others to point this out? Obscure or not, if you claim "first X!" and someone else then mentions that Y actually predates X so X wasn't the first $FOOBAR after all, that's hardly the second person's fault.

I agree it's silly to discuss the first plane in Antarctica, no matter whether it flew or not. But since you (the US-Americans) are the ones who started it, I don't think you should complain.

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#30658172)

Why, pray, do US-Americans then (at least in your view) constantly claim "first this!" and "first that!"?

Because the silly reactions of you non-Americans are priceless to us. You should have seen your face!

Re:Cue the pissing contest (1)

blitz487 (606553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30660596)

The Wright brothers had 5 major innovations that set them apart: 1. A propellor design that was 90% efficient rather than 50% 2. Wing warping for roll control 3. Rudder attached to the wing warping for controlled turns, solving the adverse yaw problem 4. Innovative balance in the wind tunnel, used the wind tunnel to design the airfoil, as all existing data proved to be wrong by a factor of 2 5. Lightweight gasoline engine The Wrights also engaged in an organized, step-by-step method of development, and carefully documented each step. Modern aircraft design can be traced directly back to the Flyer, and no other claimants. This is all in stark contrast to other claimants to first flight.

The Independent is a little dishonest here (5, Informative)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654372)

A few paragraphs down in TFA:

Mawson had hoped to stage the first flight over the Antarctic ice cap, but the plane crashed on the Australian mainland before he set sail. No one was hurt, but with the wings damaged and no time to repair them, the explorer adapted the craft to haul his sledges, adding skis to the undercarriage and a special tail-rudder.

It was an airplane before being loaded on the boat, then it was just a cool looking tug.

press release (2, Funny)

Nick Number (447026) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654392)

A spokesman for the team discovering the aircraft issued a short statement, consisting solely of

"Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!"

...in an Australian accent.

It was made of gold? (3, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654400)

Then on Friday, a carpenter with the team, Mark Farrell, struck gold: wandering along the icy shore near the team's camp, he noticed large fragments of metal sitting among the rocks, just a few inches beneath the water."

The plane was made of gold? I guess they don't build 'em like they used to, huh?

Re:It was made of gold? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654558)

Well it's no wonder it couldn't fly. You'd be better off with a lead balloon [mythbustersresults.com] given the density and weight of gold!

Re:It was made of gold? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30657428)

Although Gold is denser, it is significantly stronger than lead, so you can use a thinner sheet which would actually be lighter.

Re:It was made of gold? (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654604)

The plane was made of gold? I guess they don't build 'em like they used to, huh?

At the time gold was the most suitable material for the airframe. It was prized both for its strength and weight characteristics. That is, of course, until nuclear fission was discovered. Then the uranium airframe became a no brainer.

Re:It was made of gold? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30656502)

If you don't find the above funny then you're kind of dense.

Re:It was made of gold? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30661330)

Facepalm

Re:It was made of gold? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654852)

Mawson was also Antarctica's first pimp.

really ? (1)

mewt (1057562) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654428)

Any lucky survivors ? :O OH no he didnt!

The famous Miskatonic Antarctic Survey found (3, Funny)

minginqunt (225413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654580)

I hope you're all preparing to welcome our new Shuggoth overlords.

I suspect I, for one, will.

please be seated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654640)

We are currently awaiting the loading of our compliment of small, lemon-soaked paper napkins for your comfort, refreshment, and hygiene during the flight, which will be of two hours duration. Meanwhile we thank you for your patience. The cabin crew will shortly be serving coffee and biscuits again.

Does anything ever leave Antarctica? (1)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654686)

Does equipment ever leave Antarctica? I mean, okay, he left the plane behind, sure, because he didn't need it anymore; does that happen still today? What I mean is, when a building or camp is abandoned, or when a tractor or plane breaks down in an irreparable way, is there any attempt to remove it, or do they just abandon it in place, let the wind and snow take its course, and leave it to archeologists years hence to rediscover it?

It would seem that Antarctica could be, among other things, a pretty cool junkyard. But a junkyard nonetheless.

Re:Does anything ever leave Antarctica? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654746)

Just wait for a future civilization to dig up all that crap and assume that we either lived in the coldest parts of Earth or Earth rotated and killed us off.

Re:Does anything ever leave Antarctica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30654784)

It would seem that Antarctica could be, among other things, a pretty cool junkyard. But a junkyard nonetheless.

Your vast insight on this matter is appreciated. :)

Re:Does anything ever leave Antarctica? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30655462)

The Antarctic Treaty means pretty much everything that can possibly be cleaned up is cleaned up. Things that can't be cleaned up shouldn't even be done.

Re:Does anything ever leave Antarctica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30656296)

Does equipment ever leave Antarctica?

There's a huge difference between how exploration in Antarctica is done now and how it was done by the early explorers. Now permits and much justification is required to leave anything behind. Single drops of fuel are cleaned up and the contaminated snow removed. However, there are still crashes. If a equipment can be recovered it is repaired and flown out. Sometimes crashes are impossible to get to. They were unable to recover all the bodies from Flight 901, so it should be no surprise the air structure is still on Mr Erebus.

The Antarctic treaty requires huge respect for the wild life. Without permits you are not allowed to interfere with the animals. The early explorers hunted them for food.

As far as Antarctica being a junkyard, that image is pretty funny. The place is huge. Huge and empty. The locations where man made artifacts have been left are a few dozen points on the map with huge uncontaminated areas between them.

just be careful... (3, Funny)

catbertscousin (770186) | more than 4 years ago | (#30654732)

Take some dogs with you when you drill, and if they start going nuts about any large, plant-like objects you find, leave them alone!
Also listen for strange piping sounds in the wind.

Re:just be careful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30658184)

What is this a reference to? Sounds cool.

Where else would they find it? (1)

theJML (911853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30655004)

I mean, seriously, that title is kinda pointless. If it never left the Antarctic, there's a darn good chance it's 'In Ice'. It would have been more newsworthy if it was found somewhere else.

Never flew on the Antarctic (2, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30655278)

Can you call a plane that never flew on the Antarctic the first plane on the Antarctic?
Because in that case I'm going to build the first hover-car on Earth.

Re:Never flew on the Antarctic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30655504)

key word is ON the antarctic

Re:Never flew on the Antarctic (1)

Prien715 (251944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30657082)

Did it work on the moon?

I guess we can thank global warming (2, Funny)

zorro-z (1423959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30655652)

It does seem as if the melting of Antarctic ice is what revealed the long-lost plane. Global warming, anyone?

Re:I guess we can thank global warming (4, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30655900)

It was still sitting on the ice when he returned in 1929 and 1931, and in 1975 it was photographed after a big ice melt.

Abandoned in 1914, it was still visible at least until 1931. Between then and 1975 or so it was covered in ice but after "a big ice melt it", was visible again. And now, it is barely visible as it is covered in ice again.

Hardly evidence that can be used to support global warming.

Re:I guess we can thank global warming (1)

thedudethedude (1462877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30656190)

about as credible as the other arguments I've heard

Re:I guess we can thank global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30657606)

Yet another one who doesn't know the difference between weather, season, and climate.

If you haven't seen good evidence for *climate* change, you haven't looked. Yet, assuming that melts only happen due to climate is silly. Anyone with even the slightest introduction to climate science can tell you the difference. Ice melts happen on the periphery of Antarctica every summer. Yes, it's summer down there right now. It's only evidence for a change in climate if it can be proven to be far larger than anything that has ever happened before, or if it persists for decades.

Now, a big melt at the *south pole* might be news. You do know the difference between the Antarctic coast and the south pole, right?

Re:I guess we can thank global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30658110)

"It's only evidence for a change in climate if it can be proven to be far larger than anything that has ever happened before, or if it persists for decades."

So then...you FAIL.

Re:I guess we can thank global warming (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30661112)

Yet another one who doesn't know the difference between weather, season, and climate.

That's easy. Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get. Seasons are Spring, Summer, Football, and Mud.

(att:RAH)

RTFA (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30660862)

Hardly evidence that can be used to support global warming.

TFA says: "exposed by a blue moon (the second full moon in a calendar month), the lowest tide ever recorded at that site and an unprecedented melting of ice".

Tell me again how an unprecedented melting of ice could not be an evidence of global warming?

Re:RTFA (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30660964)

Since it was visible in 1975, the melting evidently was not unprecedented.

RTFA, again! (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30661456)

Since it was visible in 1975, the melting evidently was not unprecedented.

From another paragraph in TFA: "in 1975 it was photographed after a big ice melt"

So, the ice melt in 1975 was big. The current ice melt is unprecedented, which means obviously bigger than the one in 1975.

You know, the plural of anecdote is not data and we are talking about a single point here. But even then this can be interpreted as evidence of global warming.

Re:RTFA, again! (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30661680)

I see, because the author uses the word "Big" for 1975 and then "Unprecedented" for now, that is interpreted as evidence of global warming.

The standards of scientific proof have gotten pretty low these days.

Re:RTFA, again! (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30662340)

that is interpreted as evidence of global warming

No, it was you [slashdot.org] who tried to turn an otherwise unrelated story into evidence against global warming. I just showed how illogical your trolling was.

If you want evidence for global warming you can just google it [google.com] .

Re:I guess we can thank global warming (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 4 years ago | (#30661082)

Hardly evidence that can be used to refute global warming either.

Re:I guess we can thank global warming (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30661124)

Did I saw it refuted it? Oh, that's right...I didn't.

Of course, it's not up to anyone to refute it, but it is up to someone to prove it.

Denialist TROLL (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30661608)

Did I saw it refuted it? Oh, that's right...I didn't.

Then why did you mention it? The least one can say is that your comment was off topic.

Re:I guess we can thank global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30657524)

Hmmmm...Let's see....

It was sitting on ice when he left it......

Found on the ice today........

OH, it's got to be global warming!

Come on, it wasn't at the bottom of the ocean!

Why did nobody find it, in all those years? (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30655682)

Let me guess: It hid in plane site! ^^

story error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30655768)

It appears Mawson did not fly over the south pole he flew into the south pole.

Antarctic or Antarctia, that is the question! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30655982)

The antarctic continent is fine. But the Antarctic? Shouldn't it be Antarctica?

Predator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30656480)

Just be carefull of any weapons, maybe you would find an allien warrior base

Ahem (2, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30657348)

Since they have found the plane, that then means that the search really wasn't 'fruitless', was it?

Nimrod (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30659264)

Punchline: Nimrod Expedition. Create your own jokes.

How about a stupid photo? (1)

maven_johnson (870682) | more than 4 years ago | (#30660146)

What kind of article of this kind doesn't include some interesting photos? I'm enraged! I have no interest in READING about this stupid plane!

Re:How about a stupid photo? (1)

rantingkitten (938138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30662418)

Wait, so do you want a stupid photo or an interesting one? Make up your mind.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>