A huge 10m neutrino telescope in the South Pole. So far, $242 million in US taxpayers dollars have been spent (or printed) through the US National Science Foundation for this monster. It will easily approach $1 billion. People risking their lives in Antarctica to run this thing. Why? What will be the payback? All this money and risk for "maybe" a "potential" clue to the evolution of the universe? More government spending gone amok. And we wonder why the US dollar is approaching 0.5 Euro. The most expensive radio telescope antenna in the world....where is the common sense? http://pole.uchicago.edu/
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:43:57 -0500, "common sense"
<nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: >A huge 10m neutrino telescope in the South Pole. So far, $242 million in US >taxpayers dollars have been spent (or printed) through the US National >Science Foundation for this monster. It will easily approach $1 billion. >People risking their lives in Antarctica to run this thing. Why? What will >be the payback? All this money and risk for "maybe" a "potential" clue to >the evolution of the universe? More government spending gone amok. And we >wonder why the US dollar is approaching 0.5 Euro. The most expensive radio >telescope antenna in the world....where is the common sense? >http://pole.uchicago.edu/
Hi Dan,
I thought you were generally for such things. To what do you attribute this shift in feelings for science? After all, a cost of merely $1B and some tears shed for no one yet put to any physical discomfort when we've spent nearly a Trillion to no obvious gain and certain death for thousands seems rather a whipsaw out of catatonic lethargy. Should we turn our eyes toward the South Pole to the neglect of the national paralysis in the middle east?
On the other hand, focusing on the South Pole, an interesting parallel diversion of no immediate consequence in these threads, could also be a way of distancing oneself from other embarrassments of mistaken attributions.
Have you come to means by which you can reconcile the difference?
common sense wrote: > A huge 10m neutrino telescope in the South Pole. So far, $242 million in US > taxpayers dollars have been spent (or printed) through the US National > Science Foundation for this monster.
So the cost of the SPT works out to about 21 hours, eight minutes of Iraq War, and it will certainly last a lot longer than 21 hours. If it will outlast the Iraq war is another question.
> It will easily approach $1 billion.
...or about 3 days, 16 hours of Iraq War.
> People risking their lives in Antarctica to run this thing.
Voluntarily. No one faces criminal charges for refusing to go and so far zero casualties versus 3,966 in Iraq.
> Why? What will > be the payback? All this money and risk for "maybe" a "potential" clue to > the evolution of the universe?
> More government spending gone amok. And we > wonder why the US dollar is approaching 0.5 Euro.
The reasons for the devaluation of the dollar have all but nothing to do with what the NSF is spending, you should refresh your knowledge of orders of magnitude and economics.
> The most expensive radio > telescope antenna in the world....where is the common sense?
Certainly not in your head. Get a grip on the real numbers and facts about the Federal budget and the American economy and maybe you'll have something to say that doesn't sound like some parroted conservative talking points, a/k/a lies and deception.
> merely $1B and some tears shed for no one yet put to any physical > discomfort when we've spent nearly a Trillion to no obvious gain and > certain death for thousands seems rather a whipsaw out of catatonic > lethargy. Should we turn our eyes toward the South Pole to the > neglect of the national paralysis in the middle east? > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Eloquent liberal commie crapola. Clintonistas solution? Sit and wait for more WT like deaths on US soil, wait for more blow ups and dead Americans on their own soil, ships, embassies while "the perpetrators will be haunted down" rhetoric while screwing interns and turning White House into a Whorehouse. Vote for Billary or Hussein and make way for "negotiated peace" with nice terrorists and have some order from Sharia law across the globe.
> A huge 10m neutrino telescope in the South Pole. So far, $242 million > in US taxpayers dollars have been spent (or printed) through the US > National Science Foundation for this monster. It will easily approach > $1 billion. People risking their lives in Antarctica to run this > thing. Why? What will be the payback? All this money and risk for > "maybe" a "potential" clue to the evolution of the universe? More > government spending gone amok. And we wonder why the US dollar is > approaching 0.5 Euro. The most expensive radio telescope antenna in > the world....where is the common sense? http://pole.uchicago.edu/
To further our understanding of the Universe and how it works is reason enough. Basic research always benefits mankind in the long run. Some things are worth doing even if it does not produce better bicycle wheels or more money in the pockets of oil companies in the near term. After all Michelangelo could have used a paint roller on the ceiling of that church. It would have been cheaper and quicker if he had. A nice shade of beige would have been OK or maybe institutional green. Ignorance is not bliss!
John Passaneau W3JXP Physics Electronics Shop Penn State University
Discloser: I helped build some of the equipment for that project.
John Passaneau wrote: > Discloser: > I helped build some of the equipment for that project.
What some may not realize is that most money spent by the government, no matter how irrational the initial expenditure, is routed back into the economy. This one apparently paid for some of your groceries - a good thing. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
> After all, a cost of >> merely $1B and some tears shed for no one yet put to any physical >> discomfort when we've spent nearly a Trillion to no obvious gain and >> certain death for thousands seems rather a whipsaw out of catatonic >> lethargy. Should we turn our eyes toward the South Pole to the >> neglect of the national paralysis in the middle east? >> 73's >> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
> Eloquent liberal commie crapola. > Clintonistas solution? Sit and wait for more WT like deaths on US soil, wait > for more blow ups and dead Americans on their own soil, ships, embassies > while "the perpetrators will be haunted down" rhetoric while screwing > interns and turning White House into a Whorehouse. > Vote for Billary or Hussein and make way for "negotiated peace" with nice > terrorists and have some order from Sharia law across the globe.
> bada BUmBUm > back to no power in standing waves
The Cold War is over, Yuri. We won. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH
> After all, a cost of >> merely $1B and some tears shed for no one yet put to any physical >> discomfort when we've spent nearly a Trillion to no obvious gain and >> certain death for thousands seems rather a whipsaw out of catatonic >> lethargy. Should we turn our eyes toward the South Pole to the >> neglect of the national paralysis in the middle east? >> 73's >> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
> Eloquent liberal commie crapola. > Clintonistas solution? Sit and wait for more WT like deaths on US soil, wait > for more blow ups and dead Americans on their own soil, ships, embassies > while "the perpetrators will be haunted down" rhetoric while screwing > interns and turning White House into a Whorehouse. > Vote for Billary or Hussein and make way for "negotiated peace" with nice > terrorists and have some order from Sharia law across the globe.
HOWL! Pretty cool - but
Yuri, you forgot to include:
Teachers and other liberals who fill our kids heads with claptrap.
Same sex marriage enthusiasts.
Gun control whacks.
Soccer Moms
Michael J Fox
Global Warming sissies
The French
People from Wisconsin
Now get back and rewrite that the right way, or you won't get an A on your liberal bashing report.
For extra credit, do a good diss on moderates in the same paragraphs.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:30:26 -0500, Michael Coslo <m...@psu.edu> wrote:
>For extra credit, do a good diss on moderates in the same paragraphs.
Hi Mike,
It would be far more interesting to figure out why for 12 years the whining Republicant-get-dones never took care of: 1. An amendment to protect the flag; 2. A balanced budget; 3. A great reputation overseas; 4. A secure Nation (how many years on orange alert?); 5. Fixed or eliminated the Capital Gains Tax; 6. Building more refineries; 7. Cut backs on government bureaucracy; 8. Getting out of local Schools; 9. Unfunded mandates; 10. The deficit; 11. An economy that won't tank every 2 years; 12. The infrastructure; 13. Getting out of "nation building" (a crapola idea); 14. Handing the country over to the Chinese communists; 15. Taking care of the midget in North Korea; 16. Taking care of the midget of Cuba's Castro; 17. Taking care of the midget of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez; 18. Taking care of the midget Qadaffi; 19. Taking care of the midget in NW Pakistan Ossama been Forgotten; 20. Our brave commie allie, Putin; 21. Getting back the canal; 22. Stopping the flow of illegals (the raging Republicant-get-done issue of 1988).....
Cecil Moore wrote: > John Passaneau wrote: >> Discloser: >> I helped build some of the equipment for that project.
> What some may not realize is that most money spent by > the government, no matter how irrational the initial > expenditure, is routed back into the economy. This one > apparently paid for some of your groceries - a good thing.
Cecil;
Good point. Also remember that for all the billions of dollars spent on the space program and going to the Moon there is not one single doller bill on the moon or in space except for some personal cash taken by an enterprising astronaut or cosmonaut looking to make a quick profit.
> It would be far more interesting to figure out why for 12 years the > whining Republicant-get-dones never took care of: > 1. An amendment to protect the flag; > 2. A balanced budget;
Richard OB, I might take back what I said about you in my off topic post. Clam it up, please. If it ain't antennas it doesn't belong here. Don't get trapped into this squabbling. You are a bigger man than that.
>A huge 10m neutrino telescope in the South Pole. So far, $242 million in US >taxpayers dollars have been spent (or printed) through the US National >Science Foundation for this monster. It will easily approach $1 billion. >People risking their lives in Antarctica to run this thing. Why? What will >be the payback? All this money and risk for "maybe" a "potential" clue to >the evolution of the universe? More government spending gone amok. And we >wonder why the US dollar is approaching 0.5 Euro. The most expensive radio >telescope antenna in the world....where is the common sense? > http://pole.uchicago.edu/
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:23:13 -0500, "Rick" <rickn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It would be far more interesting to figure out why for 12 years the >> whining Republicant-get-dones never took care of: >> 1. An amendment to protect the flag; >> 2. A balanced budget;
>Richard OB, I might take back what I said about you in my off topic post. >Clam it up, please. If it ain't antennas it doesn't belong here. Don't get >trapped into >this squabbling. You are a bigger man than that.
Hi Rick,
Your comment is duly noted (some might dispute the last statement). As for being trapped, I exult in it (nothing easier than shoving a sharp elbow into the soft doughy ribs of a fat decadent Republicant).
I've no problem with off-topic posts as the days of 1200 Baud downloads have long slipped beneath the goo of LaBrea. The modern miracle of killfiles for threads and authors easily takes care of the static that sometimes floods the group (in fact, I have very few of them - mostly oriented towards the CB/SW cross-posted fanatics that are geared up solely for trolling). I've seen fellows complain about a flood of M.I.6 postings, but I've never seen the original posts except once to add the filters. Complaining is a sport here in its own right where the solution is so obvious.
Being On Topic has no correlation to quality, unfortunately. Where the author is overly repetitive - and we have several longstanding contributors - I simply read one in maybe a dozen posts from them to confirm, yes, more boring repetition. That trade in technical pornography finds no censors calling for their abolition. It easily surpasses Off Topic discussion and is an effluent that dilutes serious correspondence overwhelmingly. But whatchagonnado?
However, within that drek there is sometimes either a remarkable question, or a remarkable gaff that reveals an interesting turn. Then there are trolls disguised as "remarkable" questions - such as this thread and Dan's submergence into the shadows of anonymity to both continue his sniping while giving the patrician appearance of having departed this sewer in a moral outrage of disgust.
Heck, even your posting complaining about Off Topic discussion constitutes Off Topic discussion (amazing paradox about this that must have had the philosophers scratching their heads some dozen centuries ago).
Rick wrote: >> It would be far more interesting to figure out why for 12 years the >> whining Republicant-get-dones never took care of: >> 1. An amendment to protect the flag; >> 2. A balanced budget;
> Richard OB, I might take back what I said about you in my off topic post. > Clam it up, please. If it ain't antennas it doesn't belong here. Don't get > trapped into this squabbling. You are a bigger man than that.
Is a reply to an off-topic posting also off topic? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
> >A huge 10m neutrino telescope in the South Pole. So far, $242 million in US > >taxpayers dollars have been spent (or printed) through the US National > >Science Foundation for this monster. It will easily approach $1 billion. > >People risking their lives in Antarctica to run this thing. Why? What will > >be the payback? All this money and risk for "maybe" a "potential" clue to > >the evolution of the universe? More government spending gone amok. And we > >wonder why the US dollar is approaching 0.5 Euro. The most expensive radio > >telescope antenna in the world....where is the common sense? > >http://pole.uchicago.edu/- Hide quoted text -
>common sense wrote: >> A huge 10m neutrino telescope in the South Pole. So far, $242 million in US >> taxpayers dollars have been spent (or printed) through the US National >> Science Foundation for this monster.
>So the cost of the SPT works out to about 21 hours, eight minutes of >Iraq War, and it will certainly last a lot longer than 21 hours. If it >will outlast the Iraq war is another question.
>> It will easily approach $1 billion.
>...or about 3 days, 16 hours of Iraq War.
>> People risking their lives in Antarctica to run this thing.
>Voluntarily. No one faces criminal charges for refusing to go and so >far zero casualties versus 3,966 in Iraq.
>> Why? What will >> be the payback? All this money and risk for "maybe" a "potential" clue to >> the evolution of the universe?
>> More government spending gone amok. And we >> wonder why the US dollar is approaching 0.5 Euro.
>The reasons for the devaluation of the dollar have all but nothing to do >with what the NSF is spending, you should refresh your knowledge of >orders of magnitude and economics.
>> The most expensive radio >> telescope antenna in the world....where is the common sense?
>Certainly not in your head. Get a grip on the real numbers and facts >about the Federal budget and the American economy and maybe you'll have >something to say that doesn't sound like some parroted conservative >talking points, a/k/a lies and deception.
We must, as a nation, keep the sciences alive or we are doomed to defeat in the world economy. Also, we must, as a nation, keep the arts alive or face a culture that cannot understand what to do with the science we develop and bring on our own demise.
"Richard Clark" <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote in message > >there are trolls disguised as "remarkable" questions - such as this > thread and Dan's submergence into the shadows of anonymity to both > continue his sniping while giving the patrician appearance of having > departed this sewer in a moral outrage of disgust.
Hey Richard, getting back on topic. I haven't yet heard of a good justification of the SPT other than some general sentiments about how we need to spend money on science which has been, usually, a sound investment. The HAARP antenna project for example has a defined purpose. The moon exploration had a defined purpose. But what is the exact purpose of THIS white elephant? That is really what my comments were related to. If you try to find the purpose you will see a confusing conglomeration of attempts to understand microwave cosmic rays and even exotic physics which are unlikely to be confirmed empirically. Really, take a look at the white papers on google. In reality, NSF has a budget. NSF MUST expend the budget or guess what, they risk getting less money next year. That is how government agencies work. NSF must be running out of ideas. They cannot think of anything that has more direct benefit in understanding the universe than constructing a telescope in the South Pole. I would think the hubble is suffiently far from city lights and could do a much better job. Finally Rich, you might try expending less effort on analyzing the motivations as to why certain people write the things they do and more effort on the technical content of what is being said. Just a suggestion.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:15:20 -0500, "common sense"
<nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Finally >Rich, you might try expending less effort on analyzing the motivations as to >why certain people write the things they do and more effort on the technical >content of what is being said. Just a suggestion.
Hi Dan,
I might if I weren't so provided with the amusing irony of your own analyzing motivation. Technical content? The topic is coy troll that has long died on its feet from intellectual anemia. The best you have to offer is sputtering along with cartoon dialog in an attempt to breath life into its corpse. Such effort is as entertaining as uninspired clog dancing.
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:15:20 -0500, "common sense"
> <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Finally > >Rich, you might try expending less effort on analyzing the motivations as to > >why certain people write the things they do and more effort on the technical > >content of what is being said. Just a suggestion.
> Hi Dan,
> I might if I weren't so provided with the amusing irony of your own > analyzing motivation. Technical content? The topic is coy troll that > has long died on its feet from intellectual anemia. The best you have > to offer is sputtering along with cartoon dialog in an attempt to > breath life into its corpse. Such effort is as entertaining as > uninspired clog dancing.
> 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Back on topic! Sort of! Did anyone catch the story today about the new Chinese Astronomical Observatory near the South Pole? The story is from the New York Times and the writer states the observatory is 700 miles East of the South Pole! That statement is repeated again in a picture.
Now, isn't that a good test for graduates of the American Education system? Fortunately, the writer is working for a newspaper and not somewhere important.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:05:13 -0800 (PST), "pdr...@coinet.com"
<co_far...@yahoo.com> wrote: >the observatory is 700 miles East of the South Pole!
Hi Paul,
Finally! The gristle of technical content that raises this topic to equilibrium with inspired clog dancing. (Yes, I do note the additional irony - the only redemption to be found.)
>Now, isn't that a good test for graduates of the American Education >system?
Would seem to be on par with the cerebralsclerosis that has inflicted this thread since its inception.
pdr...@coinet.com wrote: > Back on topic! Sort of! Did anyone catch the story today about the new > Chinese Astronomical Observatory near the South Pole? The story is > from the New York Times and the writer states the observatory is 700 > miles East of the South Pole! That statement is repeated again in a > picture.
I strongly suspect it is 700 miles North of the South Pole. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
> On Feb 18, 11:13 pm, Richard Clark <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:15:20 -0500, "common sense"
> > <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Finally > > >Rich, you might try expending less effort on analyzing the motivations as to > > >why certain people write the things they do and more effort on the technical > > >content of what is being said. Just a suggestion.
> > Hi Dan,
> > I might if I weren't so provided with the amusing irony of your own > > analyzing motivation. Technical content? The topic is coy troll that > > has long died on its feet from intellectual anemia. The best you have > > to offer is sputtering along with cartoon dialog in an attempt to > > breath life into its corpse. Such effort is as entertaining as > > uninspired clog dancing.
> > 73's > > Richard Clark, KB7QHC
> Back on topic! Sort of! Did anyone catch the story today about the new > Chinese Astronomical Observatory near the South Pole? The story is > from the New York Times and the writer states the observatory is 700 > miles East of the South Pole! That statement is repeated again in a > picture.
> Now, isn't that a good test for graduates of the American Education > system? Fortunately, the writer is working for a newspaper and not > somewhere important.
> Paul- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Does anyone know the size of the dish antenna they will be using? 10m?
12:08 pm EST Jan 15, 2008 (ThePles.com) A 17-member Chinese expedition team Saturday reached Dome A, Xinhua reports. The scientists reached the dome with an elevation of 4,093 meters at 11:45 a.m. local time (0645 GMT) after a 21 day journey.
Dome A or Dome Argus is an Antarctican plateau located 1200 kilometres inland. Wikipedia reports that it is thought to be one of the coldest naturally occurring places on Earth, with temperatures believed to reach -90 °C.
While Mount Vinson (4,897m) on the southern part of the Sentinel Range is the highest altitude mark in Antarctica; Dome A is the highest ice feature, comprising a dome or eminence of 4,093 m elevation, located near the center of East Antarctica and approximately midway between the head of Lambert Glacier and the South Pole.
The perfect spot for an astronomical observatory
The team raised a flag and a memorial sculpture on the point. Expedition leader Sun Bo told Changcheng Station in Antarctica over satellite phone that all 17 members are well and will now select a location for an astronomical observatory and China's third Antarctic research station. The team will also spend 70 days on a scientific project dubbed "The Panda plan."
This is the second time that Chinese scientists have arrived at the dome after a similar climb on Jan. 18, 2005, the first ever by mankind, Xinhua reports.
The first attempt to reach the spot was in 1997; it failed after 300 kms and 13-days, however marking China's first Antarctic icecap expedition. Several more attempts followed, until on Jan. 18, 2005, 13 expedition members made the first ascent of Dome A.
The name "Dome Argus" was given by the Scott Polar Research Institute from Greek mythology; Argus built the ship in which Jason and the Argonauts traveled.
The coldest air temperature recorded at Dome A during 2005 was -82.5°C. The lowest air temperature (-89.2°C) at the surface of the earth was recorded in July 1983 at Vostok, which is almost 600 m lower in elevation than Dome A.
China currently has two stations in Antarctica. Changcheng Station, founded in February 1985, is located south of King George Island, and Zhongshan Station, built in February 1989, is located south of Prydz Bay on the Mirror Peninsula, east of the Larsemann Hills. The 17 researchers are part of China's 24th scientific expedition team to Antarctica.
China launched its first expedition to Antarctica in 1984, since when such expeditions have been conducted on an annual basis.
