Requests for future continued operation of the Arecibo Observatory
4 Nov 2015 23:07:29 UTC
Topic 198295
(moderation:
Quote:
The purpose of this DCL is to request viable concepts for the future of the Arecibo Observatory,
specifically including strategies and goals for continued operations that involve a substantially reduced funding commitment from NSF.
Sad that such a mighty telescope, with no real equal has to find it's own funding it seems. The recent asteroid, the best images (as usual) come from Arecibo Radar
Requests for future continued operation of the Arecibo Observat
)
And it's not just Arecibo that has experienced funding troubles. Green Bank Telescope had quite a bit of trouble as well, but recently there were some good news because of a planned investment to use it for SETI.
https://public.nrao.edu/news/pressreleases/gbt-breakthrough-listen
With more background info:
http://www.alleghenymountainradio.org/nraos-green-bank-telescope-receives-new-funding/
Still sad.
More news on Arecibo (just
)
More news on Arecibo (just reporting the news, not taking sides here):
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/nov/16/arecibo-observatory-faces-uncertain-future-as-boss-quits
RE: More news on Arecibo
)
I'm happy to take sides.
Remember they were going to de-orbit Hubble, but scientists are still having trouble getting time on it?
If we can print money and spend it on the most ill-conceived of projects, why we can't print money and pay for a couple of big radio telescopes that people fight to get time to use?
Idiocy.
We're all doomed.
There is an Editorial on this
)
There is an Editorial on this subject on the November 17 issue of Nature Physics. I made a comment to it which was published. Read it.
Tullio
RE: There is an Editorial
)
I would if I could find it. I've looked. I can't.
I think this might be the
)
I think this might be the article but there is no comment section...
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v10/n11/full/nphys3160.html
Tullio's comments are in this
)
Tullio's comments are in this article Radio interference
I may join in tomorrow with some comments.
There's also a more recent
)
There's also a more recent comment from Mike Hewson.
Cheers,
Gary.
Having read the comments and
)
Having read the comments and I can only comment that the comments are very reasonable and measured.
Bravo.
You've succinctly made all the very valuable points.
$12,000,000/year to "operate" a radio telescope that's already built and paid-for?
It doesn't matter.
What matters is that we have no replacement.
But then, who needs my opinion?
Apparently, nobody.
RE: ... But then, who needs
)
I always read what you say :-).
These sorts of decisions will always happen if ordinary people do nothing and say nothing.
It's always the right thing to do to express a rational and well thought out opinion about something that's important to you. Like-minded people may join in and some good may come of it.
Cheers,
Gary.