> where it didn’t have much scientific value EEEeeee.. don't confuse the weird biases in scientific research from publication incentives as being a true metric

> where it didn’t have much scientific value EEEeeee.. don't confuse the weird biases in scientific research from publication incentives as being a true metric of scientific utility. There is a tremendous bias in favor of "new" instruments because the low hanging discoveries made possible on something new (not even necessarily 'better' just different) haven't been made yet. But much of that research is extremely superficial and doesn't go on to contribute much to the forward body of knowledge -- it just helps churn out papers to support career progression. Arecibo was thoroughly unmatched in several respects, particular as a radar[1]. It was also the premier instrument for validating observations made on synthetic aperture instruments since as a single aperture it's largely free of the artifacts that synthetic aperture instruments. Validation is scientifically critical but also doesn't tend to produce a lot of high profile papers. [1] E.g. consider these images of the moon imaged using Arecibo as the transmitter and Green Bank Telescope as the receiver https://sservi.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/craters2labeled_nrao.jpg https://sservi.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/craters2l...