×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

165 comments

Aliens put it there (0, Flamebait)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680144)

I saw them, they were sneaking around my backyard with it but I called the cops and they ran off, twittering mischievously in their silly Italian language. On another subject, hey slashdot, why are you all a bunch of lame dog farters who like to smell dog farts? Really, you are stupider than my brother who is really really REALLY dumb, like totally. And OMIGODTHERE THEY ARE AGAIN

Interesting... (4, Interesting)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680202)

Would there, however, be any benefit to having such a project set up under lunar regolith/base rock if we could ever get back to the moon?

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680552)

I want to see tha answer 2 this

Re:Interesting... (5, Informative)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680638)

As someone working in this exact field I would say no. Where are you going to put it ? The idea of burying it deep in a refracting medium is to eliminate cosmic rays as background noise, and allowing the neutrino to produce a muon which will do a Cherenkov light in the detector. You need a deep refracting medium for this, beside we use the whole earth as a detector because of the low cross-section the neutrino have. So with a smaller stellar body(the moon) you will have less neutrinos interacting, and this less data to work with.

Re:Interesting... (5, Funny)

Intron (870560) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681512)

I guess this is a bad time to mention the Giant Strobe Light Project that we're doing in the Antartic ice sheet.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680644)

Considering the post you're replying to...

No. There is no benefit to setting up a project to have twittering Italian police officers smelling dog farts on the moon.

Unless you were just replying to an off topic first post to try and elevate your position on the page for purposes of karma whoring, but why on Earth would somebody do that!?

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32681210)

Because I've been see-sawing between "Good" and "Excellent" karma all day. It has flip-flopped THREE times today. Sucks when you're modded funny as a FP, and some douche mods you redundant. Interesting how a FP can be a redundant comment.
 
Hey, might as well make use of someone's mod points. Karma farming FTW!

Re:Interesting... (3, Interesting)

mcelrath (8027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680806)

Ice Cube operates by observing visible Cerenkov radiation from electrons and muons created when high-energy neutrinos hit an atom in the ice, as they traverse the ice. Of course, ice being transparent to visible light is important here, and lunar regolith is opaque to visible light.

However it has been proposed to look for radio waves being emitted in a similar manner. Cerenkov radiation [wikipedia.org] is caused by moving faster than the speed of light in the medium -- it's the "blue glow" if you look at the picture on that wikipedia link, and emits a broad spectrum of radiation, down into radio frequencies. Depending on the composition of the regolith, it may be transparent to radio waves. This can be done from the Earth by pointing your antenna at the moon, or from satellite(s) in orbit around the moon. You might be interested in the Goldstone [ucla.edu] project. So, at least with proposals I've heard about, getting people on the moon to make big holes is not an important component, but the surface of the moon may still be useful for similar experiments. You never know though, maybe tomorrow someone will post a new idea!

Re:Interesting... (4, Informative)

radtea (464814) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681074)

Would there, however, be any benefit to having such a project set up under lunar regolith/base rock if we could ever get back to the moon?

Yes.

The reason why: there are virtually no high-energy muons in lunar cosmic rays, and high-energy muons, one way or another, are the major cosmic-ray background in these experiments.

The reason why there are virtually no high-energy muons in lunar cosmic rays is due to their primary mechanism of production: on Earth, cosmic-ray protons smack into atoms at the top of the atmosphere, producing high energy pions, which decay into muons etc... and because of the low density of the atmosphere, the decay time is much less than the stopping time, so the muons have most of the orignal energy of the primary cosmic ray available to them.

On the Moon, which notably lacks an atmosphere, the primay cosmic rays smack into the lunar regolith and therefore the pions are created in a very dense medium, and lose most or all of their energy before decaying. The muons thus created are relatively low energy and stop within a few meters--as opposed to terrestrial cosmic ray muons which are still seen in experiments like the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, 2 kilometres underground.

As such, a relatively small, relatively shallow detector on the Moon could produce comparable performance to the best terrestrial detectors, at only a few orders of magnitude higher cost.

It may be worth mentioning that no one working in the field ever calls a neutrino detector a "telescope", as in English that word when used without qualification virtually always means "optical telescope", so the usage in this article is misleading and confusing, to the point where if were done deliberately I would consider the person doing it to be either stupid or dishonest. I guess maybe the person who wrote the article or provided the information for it has English as a second language.

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681772)

It may be worth mentioning that no one working in the field ever calls a neutrino detector a "telescope", as in English that word when used without qualification virtually always means "optical telescope", so the usage in this article is misleading and confusing, to the point where if were done deliberately I would consider the person doing it to be either stupid or dishonest. I guess maybe the person who wrote the article or provided the information for it has English as a second language.

Sure, unqualified it implies optical, but on the other hand we have radio telescopes, infrared telescopes, x-ray telescopes, and gamma-ray telescopes. Why not the IceCube neutrino telescope? Surely, though, the lack of the word "neutrino" in the title and the summary was a gross omission.

N.W.A. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680158)

This IceCube project is part of a secret plan by the New World Alliance to take over current infrastructure.

close (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680902)

but not quite. It's cover for our project to accurately atalog the effect on Earth as we move through the densest portion of the galactic ecliptic.
muhhahahhahahaha

Re:N.W.A. (4, Insightful)

Major Downtime (1840554) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681018)

I agree. Evidence is hidden in plain sight:
O'Shea Jackson (born June 15, 1969), better known by his stage name Ice Cube, is an American rapper, actor, screenwriter, film director, and producer.
He began his career as a member of C.I.A and later joined the rap group N.W.A

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Cube [wikipedia.org]

Re:N.W.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32681484)

June 15, 1969 was a good day

Re:N.W.A. (2, Funny)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681114)

I hear they have top doctors working on an easy plan to use yellow fever to infect humans via wild wrens. Leaving us nothing but doggs and bones with little to eat but M&Ms wishing we were an exibit on deathrow in the aftermath.

Re:N.W.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32681204)

I heard that they can do it, if they put their backs in to it

Ice Cube (-1, Redundant)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680166)

Ice Cube huh. West Siiiiide represents yet again.

Re:Ice Cube (-1, Redundant)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681626)

Redundant has to be the dumbest fucking tag ever. When I posted no one else had. So fuck you guys.

IceCube? (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680186)

What, the rapper?

No, seriously. I think I remember reading about this earlier this year in Scientific American or something ... only it was on a big lake in Russia [thelivingmoon.com] and they worked during the winter when everything is frozen. Kind of cool, bleeding edge stuff.

I gather that the one in the Antarctic will be bigger, and give a view in a different direction than the Russian one.

Re:IceCube? (4, Informative)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680270)

You are taking about Baikal, it's a similar but on smaller scale. The Russians are hoping to join KM3NET in the future.

But... (3, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680210)

We don't care about the Stars on the Southern hemisphere. Those are boring. The Northern Hemisphere stars are where its at.

Re:But... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680286)

IceCube is a neutrino telescope which looks through the Earth to the Northern Hemisphere. The Earth basically acts as a filter removing potential background signals.

Re:But... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680594)

When you see the Southern Cross for the first time
You understand just why you came this way

They were just playing that song on the radio a few minutes ago. You've obviously never been near the equator, where the Southern Cross appears near the horizon after sunset.

Re:But... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680954)

They were just playing that song on the radio a few minutes ago. You've obviously never been near the equator, where the Southern Cross appears near the horizon after sunset.

Ah, so that's what that is... I was wondering about that when I moved to Florida a couple years ago.

Re:But... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681194)

You can't see it from Florida if I remember correctly (I lived there from 1980-1985); you're nowhere near enough to the equator. I saw it in Thailand, which is damned close to the equator.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32681692)

IceCube reps southside

Re:But... (4, Informative)

Deep Penguin (73203) | more than 3 years ago | (#32682214)

But that's what it sees - the sensors point at the Earth and the filter software discards muon events that track from the sky, keeping events that come from underneath since muons coming from the Northern Hemisphere decay long before they can reach the detector. Neutrinos survive passing through thousands of miles of rock, so if it comes from the middle of the Earth, it's a neutrino. If it comes from the sky, it could be a neutrino, but chances are, it's a muon.

It is a big problem (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680246)

If something gets broken, it's a step backwards for them. At least here in Antares, a similar experiment in the Mediterranean, if something goes wrong we just send a boat to get the damaged line back to our laboratory to fix it. For example right now we are working on repairing and recalibration one of the damaged lines.

Re:It is a big problem (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680656)

> If something gets broken, it's a step backwards for them.

They can drill another hole and drop in a replacement. Presumably they've designed in some redundancy.

Re:It is a big problem (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680720)

Actually no, they already had failures. And nothing was replaced. Once you place the line in the hole and pour the water back in, it's over for that particular line.

Re:It is a big problem (1)

vbraga (228124) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680746)

But can't you put another (new) line down another hole? Or the specific geometric configuration is important?

Re:It is a big problem (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680818)

Yes and no, the lines has to be spaced out correctly. They can always add lines on the outer edges, but they do have a budget, and they can't keep adding lines forever.

Re:It is a big problem (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681128)

I'm sure they could add a new detector a few meters from a failed one and compensate for the deviation from perfect geometry in software: they have to have the ability to do that anyway. However, with 5000 detectors they've surely got enough redundancy to tolerate a few dead ones without significant degradation in performance.

Re:It is a big problem (3, Informative)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681340)

I did not say they have a big rate of failure. By detectors you mean OM, or optical modules. Optical modules are attached to each line. This problem can't be solved by compensating in the software. if you put your lines to close you will start having problems of the light produced by the muons not reaching other OMs and getting blocked very soon. Spacing is required as there is already few photons to work with. If an OM is out, it's over. if they have an electrical failure on one of the lines, it's over for that line. When it was on the sketch board, they took this in consideration, that's why it's big and with so many lines and OMs. But I repeat if it's out, it's out.

Not a telescope (4, Informative)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680268)

This is an observatory, but not a telescope. It's an omnidirectional particle detector, not pointed at some distant star.

Re:Not a telescope (2, Informative)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680294)

It's the equivalent of telescope with a view range of 4*PI. You are looking everywhere at the same time.

Re:Not a telescope (4, Insightful)

Steve Max (1235710) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680438)

It can infer the direction a neutrino came from, so (given enough time) it can make "images". In fact, they've seen the moon [arxiv.org] already, as a deficit of neutrinos coming from the moon's direction. It is a telescope, just one that doesn't "see" photons and that you don't have to point at a target to see it.

Re:Not a telescope (2, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680790)

It is a telescope, just one that doesn't "see" photons

Okay, I thinkI got it.

and that you don't have to point at a target to see it.

Now you're just screwing with me.

Muons, not neutrinos (5, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681050)

they've seen the moon already, as a deficit of neutrinos coming from the moon's direction.

There's a deficit of muons, not neutrinos, from the moon's direction. Neutrinos pass through the moon easily.

Re:Not a telescope (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681170)

The ability to make an image isn't the defining characteristic of a telescope. I can see the moon through my window, but it's no telescope.

Re:Not a telescope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680514)

This is an observatory, but not a telescope. It's an omnidirectional particle detector, not pointed at some distant star.

So what you are saying is that it is a Socialist telescope?

Re:Not a telescope (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680934)

This is an observatory, but not a telescope. It's an omnidirectional particle detector, not pointed at some distant star.

Also, the part where it's not telescopic is a bit of a problem.

Re:Not a telescope (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681510)

Yes, I read through the whole article looking for an explanation of why it is referred to as a telescope. Then I was scanning through these comments for someone to explain to me how this is a telescope, figuring somewhere there had to be a couple people duking out the actual meaning of telescope, or at least the difference between a telescope and a detector...why not a microscope...

From Wikipedia

A telescope is an instrument designed for the observation of remote objects by the collection of electromagnetic radiation.

A microscope is an instrument to see objects too small for the naked eye.

An observatory is a location used for observing terrestrial and/or celestial events.

Can anyone explain to this idiot (me) why this is considered a telescope?

Re:Not a telescope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32681878)

The definition of what should be called a telescope is ambiguous, and the sentence you quoted from Wikipedia is too limiting in my opinion. If you read a little bit further, the Wikipedia lemma also describes Cosmic Ray telescopes and neutrino telescopes...
By my personal definition, IceCube is both an observatory and a telescope, as it has full sky coverage (actually it can see the Southern Hemisphere, just not as good) and very high up-time, and can also look at individual objects. Microscope... well, technically yes, but particle detectors at accelerator experiments are not usually called microscopes either. ;)

Telescope? (3, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680278)

I'm not sure that a neutrino detector is any more of a telescope than the sensor that decides when it's time for the lights to come on at night.

Re:Telescope? (2, Informative)

Steve Max (1235710) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680540)

Why? It captures information from a flux of particles (not photons, but neutrinos in this case) emitted by astrophysical objects. It allows us to study properties of those objects (and of the detected particles as well). It doesn't have a resolution high enough to give us an "image" of most of those objects, but Hubble can't image most single stars too. IceCube won't give you a pretty picture for APOD, but it will do everything else we can do with an optical telescope, or a charged particle telescope such as Auger [auger.org].

Re:Telescope? (2, Interesting)

radtea (464814) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681236)

Why? It captures information from a flux of particles (not photons, but neutrinos in this case) emitted by astrophysical objects.

Because when speaking to a broad audience it behooves scientists to avoid terminology that they know will be confusing and misleading to laypeople. Anything else is an abrogation of their responsibility to communicate science clearly and unambiguously to the public.

Besides, no one in these fields ever calls anything like this an (unqualified) telescope. So the purpose of doing so for a general audience seems to me to be solely to mislead and confuse, and I'm not at all clear why anyone would want to do that.

Curiously, the link you provide to Auger describes it as a "cosmic ray observatory", almost as if the people who created the site were scientists, aware of their responsibility to communicate clearly.

Re:Telescope? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681990)

Besides, no one in these fields ever calls anything like this an (unqualified) telescope.

Yeah, but they do say things like radio telescope or x-ray telescope, and those are very different from what most laypeople think of as a telescope. I certainly think that omitting the word "neutrino" was a big mistake, but does it go beyond that? The question is, can it be called a type of telescope?

Curiously, the link you provide to Auger describes it as a "cosmic ray observatory", almost as if the people who created the site were scientists, aware of their responsibility to communicate clearly.

"Observatory" doesn't mean "not a telescope" though. Observatories are facilities that contain instruments, frequently including telescopes. Auger is a facility, so regardless of what is in it they're going to call it an observatory. McDonald Observatory contains the Hobby-Eberly telescope and a couple others, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory contains two gamma ray telescopes.

Re:Telescope? (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681620)

actually it is looking at events created locally by neutrinos from my understanding, it isn't actually recording ANY remote events. Of course by this logic you could consider any telescope just to be recording particles that hit the telescope. But I maintain this is more of a microscope than a telescope.

Re:Telescope? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#32682160)

Why? It captures information from a flux of particles emitted by astrophysical objects.

So does the sensor on my roof that detects sunlight, but I don't refer to that thing as a telescope. It's a sensor, or a detector, not a telescope.

Re:Telescope? (4, Insightful)

necro81 (917438) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680702)

I wondered about this, too. I don't think that telescope is incorrect, exactly, but it would be better perhaps to call it an Observatory.

The key feature of a telescope as I interpret the word is amplification of visual phenomena. It makes tiny things seem big. Perhaps the nitpickers would say that the main feature of a telescope is that it can resolve finer and finer details - I'd say that's the same thing. An ancillary of this is that it tends to gather a large amount of otherwise feeble light from some small field-of-view so that, when that field of view is zoomed in to occupy the whole of a sensor (a camera, the eye, etc.) there is still something there to see.

This neutrino detector doesn't have any sort of magnification in that sense. It doesn't even work in the electromagnetic spectrum! It's purpose isn't to zoom in on a phenomenon, but to detect it and tell us where it came from. It doesn't zoom in. By that token I would say that it is an observatory, not a telescope. It does, however, have light amplification through the use of photomultipliers. And, by virtue of its size, can be thought of as having better resolving power and sensitivity than its predecessors. By measuring neutron flux intensity as a function of angular position, it should be able to produce a sky map much that those from more conventional (optical, radio, IR) telescopes. Does this make it a telescope? I don't know.

For comparison, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory [wikipedia.org] faced a similar challenge: it didn't have an aperture or light gathering and focusing mirrors common to "telescopes" of other wavelengths. It is not possible to do that with any materials we're familiar with - gamma rays are absorbed or pass right through; there can be no reflectance or refraction. GRO was, much like this neutrino experiment, a target that waited for gamma rays to pass through. Once they did the instruments would figure out their energy and where in the sky their originated from. Notice that they called it an "observatory", not a "telescope."

Re:Telescope? (2, Insightful)

mrops (927562) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681536)

I think amplification is the wrong criteria to define a telescope, a better criteria would be "convergence" or "focusing" of whatever spectrum we are looking at. That is the only common theme I can see in a Telescope, they all converge large amount of spectrum to a focal point. This may not be in a physical sense and may be done inside of a computer via munging of captured data from various physical detectors.

In that respect, I still come to the same conclusion, that this is not a telescope.

Re:Telescope? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681686)

This may not be in a physical sense and may be done inside of a computer via munging of captured data from various physical detectors.

In that respect, I still come to the same conclusion, that this is not a telescope.

Um, if you accept that a telescope need not focus by using physical reflection but by combining data from multiple detectors distributed over an area, then this would most definitely be a telescope in that respect.

If we must for some reason draw a distinction between traditional telescopes and IceCube (i.e. we're not being pedantic, we're deliberately defining the term to exclude IceCube), then I'd draw it where you didn't, at requiring physical reflection/refraction to focus.

Re:Telescope? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32682060)

> That is the only common theme I can see in a Telescope, they all converge
> large amount of spectrum to a focal point. This may not be in a physical
> sense and may be done inside of a computer via munging of captured data from
> various physical detectors.

That's what this device does.

Compton has multiple gamma ray telescopes in it :P (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681562)

The key feature of a telescope as I interpret the word is amplification of visual phenomena. It makes tiny things seem big.

This neutrino detector doesn't have any sort of magnification in that sense. It doesn't even work in the electromagnetic spectrum! It's purpose isn't to zoom in on a phenomenon, but to detect it and tell us where it came from. It doesn't zoom in.

Sure it does. It allows you to take a source of infrequent interactions and amplifies them by increasing the size of the detector. This is what electromagnetic telescopes do. A faint source of photons is amplified by increasing the collection area. A faint source of neutrinos is amplified by IceCube. The biggest difference is simply that photon interactions are much more probable than neutrino interactions, like a traditional a telescope that was looking at an object so distant only a few photons arrived per year,.

It's quite analogous, and I see no problem with calling IceCube a neutrino telescope. I'd call the facility as a whole an Observatory, because that's what an observatory is -- a facility which contains instruments for astronomical observation. An observatory is not itself an instrument.

Notice that they called [the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory]an "observatory", not a "telescope."

That's because it contains multiple instruments, including the COMPTEL Imaging Compton Telescope and the EGRET Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope.

So see? There are gamma ray telescopes that are called telescopes. Neutrino telescope may be more of a stretch, but I think it still applies for the same reason it does for gamma ray 'scopes -- it amplifies rarefied astronomical phenomenon.

Just to clarify the distinction between telescope and observatory, Hubble is also refered to as an Observatory from time to time, though its only main instrument is a single telescope so we call it the HST. It, Compton, Chandra, and Spitzer are collectively called The Great Observatories. Because those words are not exclusive, quite the opposite in that an observatory typically contains a telescope.

This could be an more epic failure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680280)

...than those Polish researchers who built an exoplanet telescope in a cave. They found a total of 0 planets.

Mythbusters-style (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680412)

Did anybody else imagine a huge lense made of ice like they made in Mythbusters to light a fire?

World's largest, eh? (1)

chargersfan420 (1487195) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680416)

The world's largest telescope...

Does the Hubble not count because it is located in space?

Re:World's largest, eh? (1)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680532)

Uh...the Hubble is 13.2 m long with a maximum diameter of 4.2 m, or a volume of about 183 cubic m. This thing has a volume of about 1,000 cubic m.

Re:World's largest, eh? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680724)

One cubic kilometer is not 1000 cubic meters.

Re:World's largest, eh? (3, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680726)

> This thing has a volume of about 1,000 cubic m.

1 cubic km. That's 10E9 cubic m.

Re:World's largest, eh? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32682238)

> This thing has a volume of about 1,000 cubic m.

1 cubic km. That's 10E9 cubic m.

No, 1E9 cubic meters.

Re:World's largest, eh? (1)

chargersfan420 (1487195) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681036)

Right, but this thing isn't finished yet. I'm just talking in general, though. Does "World's Largest" imply "manmade", or "located on earth"?

Stargate cover story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680538)

We all know this is a government cover-up of the Stargate program.

IceCube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680628)

For a minute there I thought I was reading that Hip Hop artist IceCube was building a telescope...... What is wrong with me today....

In the distant future (2, Insightful)

AnAdventurer (1548515) | more than 3 years ago | (#32680710)

Anyone/anything will wonder what on earth [sic] this is.

Re:In the distant future (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32682006)

> Anyone/anything will wonder what on earth [sic] this is.

Especially after the ice melts and it's all lying in a tangled mess on the ground.

Bad headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32680800)

I was intrigued because I assumed it was an infrared telescope. Placing it in an ice tube in the Antarctic would make some sense. Neutrino detectors are as much a telescope as a thermometer is an imaging device.

Largest "telescope"? (2, Interesting)

DiracFeynman (655294) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681076)

I'm not so sure if this can be considered the largest. What about the VLA or LIGO?

Re:Largest "telescope"? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681172)

I think it qualifies readily as most voluminous.

Re:Largest "telescope"? (1)

DiracFeynman (655294) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681296)

Perhaps, but for a telescope (especially one that detects the elusive neutrino) it makes sense to have a larger area (not volume).

Re:Largest "telescope"? (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681828)

For a telescope that detects photons (the normal meaning of telescope) area is key, because pretty much all the photons (or at least a large fraction) that are "collected" end up triggering the sensor (CCD, film, whatever) even when it is thin. For neutrinos, they hardly interact with matter at all, and the larger volume is needed. The neutrino detection experiment in Japan (I can't recall its name at the moment) is basically a huge tank of water underground surrounded by detectors that detect flashes of light created when the neutrinos interact with the water (I'm sure someone here will correct me on the details, but that is the gist of it).

PCI (1)

kershalt (99124) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681144)

FTA: "Essentially, we only have one chance to get this right."
...
"The DOR card collects the data from the DOMs and transmits it via a standard PCI bus to a CPU in the DOMhub. From the DOMhub the information is moved to a string processor by TCP/IP Ethernet and to other processors for software triggering and event building. "

Now if they are trying to "get it right the first time" shouldn't they reconsider the PCI bus being phased out [slashdot.org]? Just a thought...

-C

Re:PCI (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681272)

> ...shouldn't they reconsider the PCI bus being phased out...

It is just barely possible that they might consider vendors other than Intel. Hint: ISA industrial stuff is still available.

Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32681400)

Been there. Done that. Got the winterover Antarctic Service medal.

Beware the Penguin, who lurks in Ice Cube spaces. He is known to usurp wine, scotch, and good will. And you shall know him by his pony tail and air-bass.

Bonus: Verifier word: "hideous." For reals.

Telescope Unreachable for Repairs (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681416)

A mile down?
Beneath arctic ice?
And a cable's come loose?

Hummer 4 announced at low, low cost! Buy three today!

Waste of time (1)

Nesman64 (1093657) | more than 3 years ago | (#32681552)

They should have run this one by Al Gore first. Don't they know global warming is about to sink them? Any minute now...

Very cool, but we've got a bigger one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32681922)

Yes, this is very cool. However, the largest telescope ever built already exists and is centred here in Drenthe in the Netherlands. LOFAR is over a thousand kilometres in diameter. More details here: http://www.lofar.org/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...