The 11 November issue of "Nature Briefing" says that a second cable snapped on November 7 at Arecibo and tore the main dish. It is one of the 12 main support cables. The incident comes three months after the failure of another cable.
The 11 November issue of "Nature Briefing" says that a second cable snapped on November 7 at Arecibo and tore the main dish. It is one of the 12 main support cables. The incident comes three months after the failure of another cable.
Tullio
The article I posted said they are now looking at ways to support the dish from underneath so more cables don't snap. They are also trying to figure out why they are snapping when they are designed not too. They said they had a grant, paid out over time, of $10 Million dollars to repair the dish BUT that was before the 2nd cable snapped. Now as the costs are going up they are concerned for the future of the dish, the University DOES still want to keep it going but money is an issue.
The "Nature Briefing" article, taken from "Science" says that maybe too much equipment has been installed on the focus to cover other projects. It also says that Arecibo is not only a radiotelescope but also a planetary radar which can monitor dangerous Near Earth asteroids. The only other planetary radar in the western world is the NASA Goldstone antenna in California. Then there is a Russian military radar. I don't know if the Chinese FAST antenna can work as a radar, but also Chinese scientists cannot cooperate with American scientist by a US Government decision.
The "Nature Briefing" article, taken from "Science" says that maybe too much equipment has been installed on the focus to cover other projects. It also says that Arecibo is not only a radiotelescope but also a planetary radar which can monitor dangerous Near Earth asteroids. The only other planetary radar in the western world is the NASA Goldstone antenna in California. Then there is a Russian military radar. I don't know if the Chinese FAST antenna can work as a radar, but also Chinese scientists cannot cooperate with American scientist by a US Government decision.
Tullio
HOPEFULLY the next President of the US, assuming the News is right and it's Biden, will be able to change that regarding the telescope and other Science.
Does it need to be as big of a telescope to find the near earth objects or will a smaller antenna do the job just as well given the upgrades since the telescope was first designed?
The "Nature Briefing" article, taken from "Science" says that maybe too much equipment has been installed on the focus to cover other projects. It also says that Arecibo is not only a radiotelescope but also a planetary radar which can monitor dangerous Near Earth asteroids. The only other planetary radar in the western world is the NASA Goldstone antenna in California. Then there is a Russian military radar. I don't know if the Chinese FAST antenna can work as a radar, but also Chinese scientists cannot cooperate with American scientist by a US Government decision.
Tullio
HOPEFULLY the next President of the US, assuming the News is right and it's Biden, will be able to change that regarding the telescope and other Science.
Does it need to be as big of a telescope to find the near earth objects or will a smaller antenna do the job just as well given the upgrades since the telescope was first designed?
Size is directly related to beam width. Beam width is inverse square related to the signal return. So yes, it needs to be big.
The "Nature Briefing" article, taken from "Science" says that maybe too much equipment has been installed on the focus to cover other projects. It also says that Arecibo is not only a radiotelescope but also a planetary radar which can monitor dangerous Near Earth asteroids. The only other planetary radar in the western world is the NASA Goldstone antenna in California. Then there is a Russian military radar. I don't know if the Chinese FAST antenna can work as a radar, but also Chinese scientists cannot cooperate with American scientist by a US Government decision.
Tullio
HOPEFULLY the next President of the US, assuming the News is right and it's Biden, will be able to change that regarding the telescope and other Science.
Does it need to be as big of a telescope to find the near earth objects or will a smaller antenna do the job just as well given the upgrades since the telescope was first designed?
Size is directly related to beam width. Beam width is inverse square related to the signal return. So yes, it needs to be big.
The 11 November issue of
)
The 11 November issue of "Nature Briefing" says that a second cable snapped on November 7 at Arecibo and tore the main dish. It is one of the 12 main support cables. The incident comes three months after the failure of another cable.
Tullio
tullio wrote: The 11
)
The article I posted said they are now looking at ways to support the dish from underneath so more cables don't snap. They are also trying to figure out why they are snapping when they are designed not too. They said they had a grant, paid out over time, of $10 Million dollars to repair the dish BUT that was before the 2nd cable snapped. Now as the costs are going up they are concerned for the future of the dish, the University DOES still want to keep it going but money is an issue.
The "Nature Briefing"
)
The "Nature Briefing" article, taken from "Science" says that maybe too much equipment has been installed on the focus to cover other projects. It also says that Arecibo is not only a radiotelescope but also a planetary radar which can monitor dangerous Near Earth asteroids. The only other planetary radar in the western world is the NASA Goldstone antenna in California. Then there is a Russian military radar. I don't know if the Chinese FAST antenna can work as a radar, but also Chinese scientists cannot cooperate with American scientist by a US Government decision.
Tullio
tullio wrote: The "Nature
)
HOPEFULLY the next President of the US, assuming the News is right and it's Biden, will be able to change that regarding the telescope and other Science.
Does it need to be as big of a telescope to find the near earth objects or will a smaller antenna do the job just as well given the upgrades since the telescope was first designed?
mikey wrote: tullio
)
Size is directly related to beam width. Beam width is inverse square related to the signal return. So yes, it needs to be big.
Gary Charpentier
)
When you put it that way that makes sense.
Adios, old
)
Adios, old friend...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/19/21575025/arecibo-observatory-puerto-rico-decommission-structural-collapse-cable-break
Cthulhu wrote: Adios, old
)
I hope they are working on a plan to replace it, it would be truly sad if it just became homes or jungle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch
)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEe4Wlc5Vp0
This chap describes the state of the problem well despite originating from a place where they cannot spell whiskey correctly.
Richard
Both NYTimes and Nature
)
Both NYTimes and Nature Briefing say that Arecibo is beyond repairs and will be shut down. Sorry.
Tullio