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!

Undersea Neutrino Observatory To Be Second-Largest Human Structure

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the original-xbox-controller-still-king dept.

Science 120

cylonlover writes "An audacious project to construct a vast infrastructure housing a neutrino observatory at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea is being undertaken by a consortium of 40 institutes and universities from ten European countries. The consortium claims that KM3NeT, as it is known, will 'open a new window on the Universe,' as its 'several' cubic kilometer observatory detects high-energy neutrinos from violent sources in outer space such as gamma-ray bursts, colliding stars and supernovae. On the scale of human constructions, it will be second only to the Great Wall of China."

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

well then (5, Funny)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442270)

Why build one from scratch? Let's just upgrade the Great Wall of China to be a Great Neutrino Wall of China.

Re:well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443292)

To protect China from the Kublai "The Neutrino" Khan!

Re:well then (-1, Offtopic)

dvdwholesale3 (2432850) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443736)

P90x is an extremely intense program.Sheer will and determination may get you to the finish line,but to achieve the best results,you’ve got to have the proper quality and quantity of nutrition.We make these supplements optional,so you have a choice.But know that P90x supplements were designed for this program and will supply your body with the necessary nutrients to give you added strength energy,and stamina for each workout. As you may notice from the math on the following pages,P90x is not bulit around adaily “calorie deficit” for weight loss like the general Beachbody plans found in Power 90,Kathy Smits’s Project :You!Type 2,and Slimin 6.It’s important that you understand why ,so you have the right training mentality with this program ,with the right expectations. http://educationchildrendvds.com/7-animation-cartoons-dvds- [educationc...endvds.com]

Re:well then (0)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443774)

WTF??? Do you actually sell any DVDs with that crappy domain and trolly links?

Re:well then (1)

goodEvans (112958) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446416)

Sure hasn't that already been repurposed as a firewall?

Re:well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447096)

Why build one from scratch? Let's just upgrade the Great Wall of China to be a Great Neutrino Wall of China.

With largest they mean tallest. The great wall of china is not tall at all. It is much smaller then most multiple stories apartment buildings let alone even the smallest sky skyscrapers.

Impact on wildlife? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38442296)

I suspect the environmentalists will shut this right down, or outright sabotage it.

Re:Impact on wildlife? (3, Informative)

mark_elf (2009518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442430)

"In addition to the neutrino observatory, KM3NeT will house equipment for monitoring the deep-sea environment, including (according to Popsci) the recording of whale song and the observation of bioluminescent organisms."

I guess they thought of that.

Re:Impact on wildlife? (5, Funny)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442478)

"recording of whale song" I hope the RIAA doesn't find out.

Re:Impact on wildlife? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443162)

No worries, just set Greenpeace onto the RIAA for getting in-between them and their whale song.

Kill two cuckoos with one stone.

Re:Impact on wildlife? (1)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443760)

woops...meant "+1 interesting"...

Re:Impact on wildlife? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443706)

I would hate to live in your world of us versus them. Does your brain really filter every piece of information into what will those people I disagree with do about that? I mean damn, second post and you're bringing up environmentalist and sabotage.

Present your own viewpoints instead of painting others.

a bit disingenuous (4, Insightful)

empiricistrob (638862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442330)

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that this is the second-largest human created structure. While this is an impressive experiment which I think is very clever and great for physics, calling this a structure is a bit of a joke. If you were to call an array of phototubes a structure you could easily compare it to, say, the street lights of Los Angeles -- which I'm sure would be counted as a larger "structure".

Re:a bit disingenuous (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442482)

Not to mention, say, "the North American power grid" or "the global fiber optic network".

Re:a bit disingenuous (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443210)

Surface area defined? The Gemini solar observatory has to be up there, the base stations and two satellites define a pretty big triangle. Come to think of it, the Voyager project, for a while.

Re:a bit disingenuous (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38447042)

or Holland...

Stupid Title (4, Informative)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442678)

I know it is not your fault or the fault of /. in general. It should read tallest human structure. And it is probably that way only because it is underwater. The article says second largest considering the scale of construction for a singular project. Nothing about actual size.

Re:Stupid Title (5, Funny)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443180)

I nominate the US Interstate Highway project as "widest human structure", a close second being your mom.

Re:Stupid Title (1)

Forbman (794277) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443634)

I'll go with the Trans-Siberian Railroad instead.

Re:Stupid Title (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443894)

Sure, but it's only 4 ft 11 5â6 in tall; compare that to 2000+ miles for the interstate system.

Re:Stupid Title (4, Interesting)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445664)

Nothing will beat the dingo fence in Australia in terms of man made structure. It stretches 5,614 km (3,488 miles)

Re:Stupid Title (3, Funny)

edumacator (910819) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446260)

For God's sake, they built it for the babies.

Re:a bit disingenuous (3, Funny)

wickedskaman (1105337) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443298)

Did someone say... tubes? ;)

Re:a bit disingenuous (1)

bdsesq (515351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443702)

I thought it was number 2 after the new Apple headquarters building.....Shows what I know......

Re:a bit disingenuous (1)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443738)

I must admit that I was disappointed by the pictures. It looks like some sort of large antenna array, and I was hoping that it was some sort of underwater research base. Hopefully there'll be a future announcement declaring that will be a proper underwater base because loads of nerds thought the idea sounded cool. "It'll be a bit like the one in Deus Ex and we plan to have lots of adventures!"

Re:a bit disingenuous (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445220)

Yeah, what about the cables which run between continents under the sea? Aren't they structures?

Re:a bit disingenuous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445512)

With a few qualifiers, I think you could say this: it would be the largest *contiguous*, *suspended* structure. Other networks (power, road, optic fibre) are contiguous, but they're sitting on or buried under the ground, rather than suspended above it. Many bridges have long, continuous suspended segments, but they're substantially smaller. However, KM3NeT has the advantage of being suspended in water rather than air, which makes things considerably easier.

Re:a bit disingenuous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446008)

Not to mention the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna which, as a single "structure", has an arm length of 5 million kilometers and covers an area of some 10^12 square kilometers...

Re:a bit disingenuous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446232)

Not to mention the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna which, as a single "structure",....

It's not a single structure.

Re:a bit disingenuous (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447800)

Since it's a neutrino detector, and the sea water is part of the detection method, they are probably including the total volume of the photo-multiplier array; of course you have to consider when my First Grade Teacher said "The hour hand is the big one" I asked if she meant the longer skinny one or the short fat one.

Space (5, Funny)

Sduic (805226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442342)

On the scale of human constructions, it will be second only to the Great Wall of China.

...and the largest one not visible from space...except if you're a neutrino, presumably.

Re:Space (2)

Avarist (2453728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442520)

Even tho I'd rate your comment 5 for funny, it's only a myth that you can see the Great Wall of China from space.

Re:Space (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442540)

sure you can, with a telescope.

Re:Space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38442576)

Not if you're too far away for it to be visible through the telescope.

Re:Space (4, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442602)

sure you can, with a Great Wall of China picture book

Re:Space (1)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443002)

I remember hearing that the astronauts apparently had no idea where the wall is.
They should've sent a geographer!

Re:Space (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446616)

...and the largest one not visible from space...except if you're a neutrino, presumably.

Not for the great majority of hem. Only for the smallest minority and they only get to see the tiniest part unable to appreciate the super structure.

Sounds like a front for SPECTRE (0)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442356)

An audacious project to construct a vast infrastructure housing a neutrino observatory at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea is being undertaken by a consortium of 40 institutes and universities from ten European countries.

This sounds like a front for SPECTRE.

Re:Sounds like a front for SPECTRE (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442494)

More likely Cobra.

Re:Sounds like a front for SPECTRE (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442566)

both wrong, this has all the tell-tails of the machinations of KAOS. We'd better shoe-phone 86 and 99 to get on it.

Re:Sounds like a front for SPECTRE (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442632)

. . . and I thought it was THRUSH, for sure.

. . . "Open Channel D . . . you there, Ducky, um, I mean, Ilya . . . ?"

Re:Sounds like a front for SPECTRE (5, Funny)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443220)

We'd better shoe-phone 86 and 99 to get on it.

I hear Apple has a patent on the shoe phone.

Re:Sounds like a front for SPECTRE (1)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445442)

We'd better shoe-phone 86 and 99 to get on it.

I hear Apple has a patent on the shoe phone.

If not, they will after reading your post.

Uh-oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443888)

Tube KM6NeT is jerks.

Re:Sounds like a front for SPECTRE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446586)

Well, knowing which would be half the battle...

Obligatory soundtrack (2)

lennier (44736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442358)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk0Is8-gGSQ [youtube.com]
Klaatu, Little Neutrino

Re:Obligatory soundtrack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445388)

Terrible.

But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38442392)

Why not call it Atlantis?

Re:But (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446014)

Because it's in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea?

It's sparse (4, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442398)

No, it's not the biggest. The Deep Space Network has satellites (antennae and data storage servers) around Earth and around Mars. And neither it nor the KM3NeT are solid structures.

The Great Wall is not strictly connected either but at least it consists of large solid fragments that are big on their own. This observatory is merely an array of sensors suspended in the sea. If you want the biggest structure, I'd look at a road system of a country.

Re:It's sparse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443354)

Is the Great Wall even the biggest structure? Is a solitary wall even considered a structure, or merely a part of a structure?

What about the Olmec, Mayan, Incan, Aztec, Egyptian, or Chinese pyramids? I'm also fairly certain there is a large submerged pyramid near Japan.

Ignoring the ancient megalithic buildings, what about the modern ones like the Burj Khalifa or the Shard? Do man made islands count as structures? What about man made canals?

Meh.

Re:It's sparse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443848)

The internet doesn't count as a structure?

Bioshock much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38442418)

I'll bet this is how Rapture began. Watch out for anyone who proposes breaking off from the outside world.

Re:Bioshock much? (0)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443402)

Sweet. We can get rid of the idiot Libertarians by shipping them all down there.

Re:Bioshock much? (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38444090)

Are we going to chop them up into little bits and stuff them into those little pods? There is no habitable structure down there, just a bunch of floating receiver elements.

Re:Bioshock much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443822)

I'll bet this is how Rapture began. Watch out for anyone who proposes breaking off from the outside world.

Cool - can't wait to go there to track down and kill little girls and steal their energy! It's even better than my last vacation in Thailand!

Finally (2)

GodGell (897123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442420)

At last, it was high time we build something interesting under the seas.

odds are (1)

pinfall (2430412) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442434)

It will never get fully funded.

Re:odds are (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445792)

Probably true. I've seen people trying to drum up support for KM3NeT at various conferences, for a while, and they don't seem to be making much progress. I guess the trouble is that KM3NeT would be only a mild improvement on the existing IceCube detector, which cost the best part of a billion bucks.

Incidentally, I'm a grad student working on another neutrino detection project. We're funded, but our costs are a lot lower than the above projects (in exchange for having a smaller chance of actually detecting a neutrino).

Re:odds are (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446160)

Frankly, I think it's kind of a mistimed project. We should be in space, it's a much easier environment to work with. And we should be working like ants out there on projects. Of course I am an undergrad engineering student, not a scientist, what do I know? But I would imagine that working outside the atmosphere in a relative vacuum with little gravitational influences, one could put up some amazing arrays of sensors. Unless vast amounts of sea water crushing down upon you is their idea of the pristine environment to detect neutrinos, it seems like quite the handicap to give oneself for a working environment. Not to mention, why the Mediterranean? It's like a cesspool so to speak, with all of Europe washing into it. Is that what they want to filter through?

Anyway, the whole thing seems like something that wastes resources that should be going for space. Once we are in space we will have crazy amounts of resources to work with, we can come back and build our underwater labs with gleeful abandon due to the fact we can drop all the materials we mined and refined right on the construction site. Personally, I want a giant submarine that all my friends can live in, we will paint it yellow. No reason....lol.

Good luck with that project of yours, I like science...seriously I do.

Re:odds are (2)

AlecC (512609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446510)

The vast amounts of water are what you need, and what you don't get in space. You only detect a neutrino when it, just very occasionally, interacts with matter, which generates a flash which their suspended detectors report. You need cubic kilometres of something of reasonably known chemical composition, preferably with a lot of light nuclei, not vacuum. Another project is using cubic kilometres of Antarctic ice for the same purpose. You could hang your detectors in space, but there would be nothing there to detect unless you hauled cubic kilometres of water or, say, highly compressed hydrogen, there. Not to mention that they would be in different orbits, so that you would need a significant structure to hold them in constant physical relationships.

As to the choice of ocean: the Mediterranean is actually quite clear because of its relatively low oxygen content. While they may be cleaner, the Atlantic etc. are, at least in their shallower areas, pretty opaque because they are full of plankton. And you need a shallow area, of which the Mediterranean has plenty, because you are fastened to the bottom. This is not about the abyssal depths, this is just about instrumenting a very large volume of clear-ish water.

This is a detector that, basically, could not be built in space because of the gigatons of matter needed.

Re:odds are (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447312)

I see, we couldn't just dangle the sensors in a gas giant? Just kidding. I was wondering what the relationship was. Thanks.

Re:odds are (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446368)

I work in ANTARES, the KM3NET v0.1 . Most people working here work on KM3NET as well. For now there is 50 Million euros available for us to build this ( we need around 200 Million Euros). There is going to be three detectors, each couple of times bigger than ICECUBE. And the improvement will be huge, combined detectors will give results 10 times better than ICECUBE.

military target (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38442450)

Will this observatory become a military eavesdropping device? Could this device be sensitive enough to detect and pinpoint the nuclear reactions of hidden nuclear ballistic missile submarines? Could it also pinpoint/detect nuclear tests by rogue states?

Alone perhaps it may not be sensitive enough but what if it was coupled with existing neutrino detectors to increase its detection method like how very large baseline arrays work in the radio telescope field.

I personally think that putting such instrument in open water is risky. It may invite attacks by non associate nations or by terrorist attack. It may be more practical to drill and burry such a device deep in solid earth or beneath a deep inland lake.

Re:military target (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446370)

No, neutrino detection threshold will be around 1 GeV. Nuclear reactions produce neutrinos in the ~MeV scale. But ICECUBE are planning on additions that will be able to detect neutrinos with such low energies. Ps, the detector will be more or less protected by the french navy. As there is a very close naval base in Toulon, France.

Re:military target (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38448040)

No, doing that would be like trying to see a firefly in the middle of a 4th of July fireworks grand finale while wearing welding goggles.

1. isn't europe broke? 2. didnt the guy that built (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442452)

the great wall of china commit suicide, because he felt he had offended nature by attempting to impose human folly on it?

Re:1. isn't europe broke? 2. didnt the guy that bu (2)

Avarist (2453728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442580)

1. The European Union (which is smaller than Europe btw) is the largest economy in the world with the highest GDP by lead of 12% so I guess not. 2. I'd be pretty surprised if a single guy built the Great Wall of China.

GDP doesnt mean anything if your debt (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443152)

is higher than your GDP.

2. oh yeah. i know it was easy to mis-understand what i meant. there was actually one guy, who told other people what to do, and thats how the great wall of china got built. but then he committed suicide. because he had disturbed the Chi of the earth.

Re:GDP doesnt mean anything if your debt (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443384)

http://www.chinahighlights.com/greatwall/fact/

Re:GDP doesnt mean anything if your debt (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445774)

us debt: 100,39% debt to gdp ration http://www.usdebtclock.org/ [usdebtclock.org]
"eu debt" : (80% of GDP) (2010) see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union [wikipedia.org]
indeed ...

Re:GDP doesnt mean anything if your debt (1)

emilper (826945) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446526)

... that is not very uninformative: most EU15 countries finance the budget by getting dividents from state-owned companies or companies partially owned by the state (that is how Germany over 45% of GDP in govt. spending every year). ... The statistics don't include the debt of those companies ...

Body count... (1)

bosef1 (208943) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442492)

So how many people are going to be buried in it?

Re:Body count... (1)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442916)

If you read TFA you'll see it's not actually a manned structure. Confusion understandable given the sloppy title.

... that is where you'll find me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38442522)

SeaLab underneath the water. SeaLab at the bottom of the sea.

amazing -- Sealab 2012!

This sorta makes me ill. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38442584)

Every time a story like this about a massive particle physics project surfaces, my stomach turns. I am by no means anti-science; I did my undergrad in physics, and am a graduate student in engineering. It all just seems like a massive misappropriation of resources. One can blow the horn of scientific inquiry all day, but there are incredibly daunting and very real challenges facing the world today (e.g., energy, toxicology) that need the attention of intelligent people. We live in such a unique time in human existence, when we have this massive supply of cheap energy with which to make massive strides forward in developing a sustainable future, and yet we place trillions of dollars into understanding physical effects which will bear no consequence on the extreme challenges we will face in the very, very near future.

Re:This sorta makes me ill. (1)

johnwsimpson (2536036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442788)

Yep. Can't argue.

Re:This sorta makes me ill. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38442864)

There are 7 billion people on the planet; that's too many to save (millions have tried). The future is sustainable, but it's not going to be the pretty, Star Trek utopia that we'd all like.

Re:This sorta makes me ill. (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442918)

What makes you think that a particle physicist would have any aptitude whatsoever in toxicology?

Re:This sorta makes me ill. (1)

glitch0 (859137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445416)

understanding physical effects which will bear no consequence on the extreme challenges we will face in the very, very near future.

This is just flat out wrong. You should know from getting an undergraduate physics degree that EVERYTHING we use for technology now was at one time a "physical effect which will bear no consequence on the extreme challenges we will face in the future". Seriously, just look at electricity and magnetism as an example. Those were just "physical effects" at one time but now they're the basis of computing. We're now using computers to model biological systems and cure diseases, which is just one example of thousands where we're taking extreme problems and solving them with something that was once just an odd "physical effect".

What if they learn something from the neutrino observatory that leads to teleportation technology? Or solves our energy crisis somehow? These are all possibilities and to not investigate the unknown is just a waste of humanity itself. You're a scientist, man. Act like one! Where's your spirit of curiosity and undying passion to know the unknown? I guess you decided to go into engineering instead of research, and maybe that passion isn't something we share. Engineering is an awesome degree and I hope you do great things with it. But don't lose your inquiring spirit :-)

Re:This sorta makes me ill. (1)

voidphoenix (710468) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445624)

Every time a story like this about a massive particle physics project surfaces, my stomach turns. I am by no means anti-science; I did my undergrad in physics, and am a graduate student in engineering. It all just seems like a massive misappropriation of resources. One can blow the horn of scientific inquiry all day, but there are incredibly daunting and very real challenges facing the world today (e.g., energy, toxicology) that need the attention of intelligent people. We live in such a unique time in human existence, when we have this massive supply of cheap energy.

So do we have an energy problem or not?

Your inconsistency notwithstanding, you could pick something better to complain about than spending

trillions of dollars into understanding physical effects which will bear no consequence on the extreme challenges we will face in the very, very near future.

Try military spending [wikipedia.org] , or even luxuries like cosmetics and perfumes [worldwatch.org] . Besides, I doubt anyone can say with certainty that those poorly-understood physical effects bear no consequence. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that such understanding could provide the keystone to overcoming the challenges you point out.

Re:This sorta makes me ill. (1)

Wandering Idiot (563842) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445708)

Yeah, man, understanding basic physical processes couldn't possible lead to better technologies/solutions down the road. We know everything we need to now, let's just stop all scientific inquiry, or maybe we should have done that in the 50's, or at the beginning of the industrial revolution, or hell, once we found out how to make fire, did we really need anything else?

If countries were spending like 50% of their GDP on projects like this, you might have a point, but you and I both know the expenditures are relatively miniscule on the level of nation/international budgets, and if you didn't know that and were actually serious about the "trillions of dollars" nonsense, you're woefully uninformed to be commenting on the issue (You wouldn't be alone, mind you- I remember seeing a US poll indicating a significant portion of the populace thinks NASA's share of the national budget is something like 20%, when it's closer to 0.5%*). The basic research into subatomic physics is what made possible the development of nuclear reactors, which are likely going to be increasingly important to our energy future once the cheap oil runs out. Similar for better solar panels, more efficient engines, etc. Basically, if you want to solve technological problems, you should be arguing for *more* fundamental, not-immediately-profitable/usable scientific research, not less. The amount of physics and math graduates being sucked into jobs in the financial industry because they pay so well in comparison to actual useful work is a far bigger drain on our ability to deal with the future than fundamental scientific research, in my opinion.

* Similarly, the National Science Foundation is about 0.2%, and the amount of the Dept. of Energy's budget devoted to research, while less trivial to work out, likely comes to a similar percentage of overall expenditures.

Re:This sorta makes me ill. (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38446152)

Comments like this sort of make my stomach turn. If we had all thought like this, we would still be living in caves.

chronotrigger reference (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442600)

Will this "ocean palace", which is built to "detect" these mysterious "neutrino" emminations inadvertantly rouse the mighty lavos before he's good and ready?

You know how it is with those quantum mechanical things- all kinds of consequences happen as a result of obervation! /joke

Ok, jokes aside, this is very awesome. The engineering lessons learned could be applied in a wide range of ocean construction projects.

Re:chronotrigger reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443386)

The North Wind howls... at your petty attempt at a CT analogy.

Re:chronotrigger reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443840)

The North Wind howls... at your petty attempt at a CT analogy.

Ugh. The *Black [google.com] * wind howls

Hold on, hold on.. (1)

new death barbie (240326) | more than 2 years ago | (#38442782)

These are the Europeans, right? The same group of countries currently scrambling to tighten their belts and prevent a financial calamity?

Let's not hold our collective breaths. Funding might be a little scarce, for a while.

Re:Hold on, hold on.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38442962)

"Ya gotta spend money to make money."

Re:Hold on, hold on.. (2)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445312)

Yes neutrino farming is the next big thing. I hear Goldman Sachs is selling neutrino futures as well.

Re:Hold on, hold on.. (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443264)

The research funding in the UK is dwarfed in comparison to military budgets or even annual DVD purchases. It's quite possible that international funding could be found for a project like this. With 40 institutes putting money in it's quite possible this will go ahead, it's a reasonably low-budget project in many ways.

Re:Hold on, hold on.. (1)

kwikrick (755625) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445756)

Yes, lets STOP EVERYTHING because some bankers fucked up their bookkeeping.

Sadly, the parent post is probably right, that is what's going to happen to this project.

Let's fire all scientists and stop funding whatever makes society worth while, like schools and social security and infrastructure and such nonsense. Instead, let's write big checks to the banks that caused all this mess and lower taxes for high incomes like bank directors.

rant, rant, rant, sigh....

Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38443042)

This is a retreat bunker for the rich once they release the super virus that will destroy everyone else.

j/k ... or am I...

Obliq hole in the bottom of the sea (1)

FunkyRider (1128099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443280)

There's a hole in the bottom of the sea There's a hole in the bottom of the sea There's a hole There's a hole There's a hole in the bottom of the sea There's a speck on the flea on the tail on the frog on the bump on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea There's a speck on the flea on the tail on the frog on the bump on the log on the hole in the bottom of the sea There's a speck There's a speck There's a speck on the flea on the tail on the frog on the bump on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea

Great Idea (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38443710)

Turn Great Wall into a neutrino detector

Re:Great Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38446618)

But we will have to go into space to make observations...

So LOC... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38444430)

So, what is that? 1.5, 15 150 Library of Congresses?

how will they detect all the neutrinos? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38445302)

Since the medeterranian is full of turds how will they see a neutrino?

Relax... It's -really- just an underwater Mall :-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38445480)

...waiting for submarine taxis! :-)

PS Seriously, it could be a nice big place for powerful officials & rich folks to "survive" in, eg, if someone explodes a nuclear bomb up on land. Its availabilitiy could even increase the risk that someone does that awful deed, since some would be saved, ie, if "your" team could be sure of being among the ones to be saved... :-/

Ever heard of biofouling? (1)

Gallamine (610774) | more than 2 years ago | (#38447544)

So, the plan is to immerse a huge number of optical detectors into the deep sea for an extended period of time. Talk to any biologist or oceanographer and they'll tell you what happens to things like that - they become completely encrusted with plant and animal material. It's called "bio-fouling" and it's one of the biggest problems with putting anything in the ocean (aside from extreme pressure). I just don't see how they'd keep a system like that a) operational and b) calibrated.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?