6 ms·
This is horrible. Arecibo is still crucial in radio astronomy experiments ongoing as of 2019. It should be repaired, until a replacement is built.
by Communitivity 6y ago
This is horrible. Arecibo is still crucial in radio astronomy experiments ongoing as of 2019. It should be repaired, until a replacement is built.
- protoster 6y agoAs the article explains, it has been deemed to be unsafe to repair. What's probably missing in that sentence is "...within an acceptable budget."
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoNot sure... even with an infinite budget, you need time to build your repair solutions. It's possible that for no amount of money can you repair it before it suffers complete collapse without doing risky things that may cause loss of life.
- marcinzm 6y agoYup, as the classic saying goes "nine women can't make a baby in one month". There's a minimum time for things even without budget constraints.
- tootie 6y agoThe article also says the NSF has been looking to divest since 2006 in favor of other projects and had a signed agreement to transfer operations to UCF. It's not simply a matter of whether or not it's still useful, but whether it's worth the cost relative to other facilities.
- zaroth 6y agoSpeaking with absolutely no expertise in the matter, I would guess it’s on the verge of collapse due to lack of maintenance or fatal design flaw. It’s probably no longer a matter of fixing more like a total rebuild would be required?
- LUmBULtERA 6y agoI loved seeing Arecibo when I last visited PR. It is sad to see it dismantled -- I wonder what plans, if any, there are to replace its capabilities.
- topspin 6y agoFAST is now online, newer and larger.
- cpascal 6y agoIt seems FAST isn't a complete substitute for Arecibo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-hundred-meter_Aperture_Spherical_Telescope#Comparison_with_Arecibo_Observatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-hundred-meter_Aperture_Sp...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lobotryas 6y agoWhose money are you volunteering to be spent on that?
- deeeeplearning 6y agoI'm sure you could trade a handful of Patriot missiles and one or two F-35's to fund it several times over.
- singemonkey 6y agoQuick and probably very inaccurate calculation Arecibo cost $9.3 million in 1963. This is equal to $79,000,000 now (https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1963?amount=9300000 https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1963?amount=93000...). An F-35 costs about $100 million. Based on that, I'd be happy to give up a single F-35 to rebuild Arecibo.
- petschge 6y agoAnd the US is planning to purchase 2500 of those. Because 2400 are clearly not enough.
- admiralspoo 6y agoThe defense budget is tiny compared to the US's welfare state programs.
- zaroth 6y agoIt also affords the US a position as the world’s reserve currency which itself is worth trillions of dollars. I’m not sure the ROI analysis is particularly straightforward, all things considered.
- deeeeplearning 6y agoYou think that removing 2 F-35s from the budget will significantly alter that calculus? To be clear. The US' >5000 Nuclear warheads is more than enough to cement its place as the most important military power in the world.
- magicalhippo 6y agoYeah, in the previous story I mentioned[1] NANOGrav, which is on the brink of some really interesting science but relies heavily on Arecibo for their dataset. They mention a delay of more than a few months of data from Arecibo would have very negative consequences, so an outright loss must be a very, very significant blow for them. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25046378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25046378