The New York Times article yesterday said they started studies on how to rebuild. They did not get so far as the question of finding enough money for a plausible plan. Instead, they concluded they could not conduct a safe rebuild/repair. Thus they expect to dismantle it.
The New York Times article yesterday said they started studies on how to rebuild. They did not get so far as the question of finding enough money for a plausible plan. Instead, they concluded they could not conduct a safe rebuild/repair. Thus they expect to dismantle it.
They had a commitment to spend 10 Million to rebuild it before the 2nd cable snapped and changed things, so maybe after they dismantle the thing they can have enough to build a small array of telescopes instead of a single big one. Maybe they can build 1 or 2 of them now and then next year or the year after add another couple etc.
The New York Times story on the collapse says that damage was observed atop all three towers.
I don't know whether the original design was deficient, or hugely imprudent additions to the load were made subsequently, or the thing was in a state of severe decay from maintenance neglect, but this sort of stuff is not supposed to happen.
Does anyone here have any clue why the suspended stuff adds up to so much mass? Something like 800 or 900 tons!?!? That is in the ballpark of a World War I destroyer. It is right about the mass of the Type VII U-boat, the dominant WWII German class. Seems a lot of stuff to hang up in the air for this mission.
A paper I found on FAST (the bigger Chinese one) mentions that the active focus cabin on that one is under a thirtieth as massive.
The New York Times story on the collapse says that damage was observed atop all three towers.
I don't know whether the original design was deficient, or hugely imprudent additions to the load were made subsequently, or the thing was in a state of severe decay from maintenance neglect, but this sort of stuff is not supposed to happen.
Does anyone here have any clue why the suspended stuff adds up to so much mass? Something like 800 or 900 tons!?!? That is in the ballpark of a World War I destroyer. It is right about the mass of the Type VII U-boat, the dominant WWII German class. Seems a lot of stuff to hang up in the air for this mission.
A paper I found on FAST (the bigger Chinese one) mentions that the active focus cabin on that one is under a thirtieth as massive.
One thing they showed during the Bond movie was ALOT of very large heavy gears and machinery and alot of steps so I'm sure it was built long before those things could be minaturizeed like now.
The video of the actual collapse available at that link is stunning. Don't stop watching at the 50 second mark thinking it is all over save a little dust movement. About 55 seconds in the view switches to live video from a drone which is initially a tight shot in on cables at the very moment they start letting go.
The video of the actual collapse available at that link is stunning. Don't stop watching at the 50 second mark thinking it is all over save a little dust movement. About 55 seconds in the view switches to live video from a drone which is initially a tight shot in on cables at the very moment they start letting go.
Amazing.
The "Video: Footage of Collapse Arecibo Observatory" clearly shows the cables on one affected tower snapping. The tower in question (left side video image at about the 9 or 10 second mark generates a popping sound. The cable bundle attached to that tower becomes blurred under the sudden release of weight and the receiver unit just drops. It does seem that the weight was excessive. Being where it is, i.e. surrounded by water I would suggest that it required constant maintenance to keep the "rust away". The question is "did the cable fail or did the tower fail?"
The video of the actual collapse available at that link is stunning. Don't stop watching at the 50 second mark thinking it is all over save a little dust movement. About 55 seconds in the view switches to live video from a drone which is initially a tight shot in on cables at the very moment they start letting go.
Amazing.
The "Video: Footage of Collapse Arecibo Observatory" clearly shows the cables on one affected tower snapping. The tower in question (left side video image at about the 9 or 10 second mark generates a popping sound. The cable bundle attached to that tower becomes blurred under the sudden release of weight and the receiver unit just drops. It does seem that the weight was excessive. Being where it is, i.e. surrounded by water I would suggest that it required constant maintenance to keep the "rust away". The question is "did the cable fail or did the tower fail?"
I would guess alot of both, they have also had several hurricanes go thru Puerto Rico in 2020 alone and then add in the BIG one a couple years ago when Trump threw paper towels at people who had water inside their homes and there probably was a whole lot of deferred maintanance going on there.
The New York Times article
)
The New York Times article yesterday said they started studies on how to rebuild. They did not get so far as the question of finding enough money for a plausible plan. Instead, they concluded they could not conduct a safe rebuild/repair. Thus they expect to dismantle it.
archae86 wrote: The New York
)
They had a commitment to spend 10 Million to rebuild it before the 2nd cable snapped and changed things, so maybe after they dismantle the thing they can have enough to build a small array of telescopes instead of a single big one. Maybe they can build 1 or 2 of them now and then next year or the year after add another couple etc.
It's over!! The gantry has
)
It's over!! The gantry has crashed into the disk below it destroying it!!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/arecibo-telescopes-900-ton-platform-154919473.html
mikey wrote: It's over!! The
)
That is sad to look at. What a piece of scientific marvel. Also I am reminded that we too are here for a short time.
The New York Times story on
)
The New York Times story on the collapse says that damage was observed atop all three towers.
I don't know whether the original design was deficient, or hugely imprudent additions to the load were made subsequently, or the thing was in a state of severe decay from maintenance neglect, but this sort of stuff is not supposed to happen.
Does anyone here have any clue why the suspended stuff adds up to so much mass? Something like 800 or 900 tons!?!? That is in the ballpark of a World War I destroyer. It is right about the mass of the Type VII U-boat, the dominant WWII German class. Seems a lot of stuff to hang up in the air for this mission.
A paper I found on FAST (the bigger Chinese one) mentions that the active focus cabin on that one is under a thirtieth as massive.
Goodbye Arecibo. Very
)
Goodbye Arecibo.
Very Sad.
NSF News
Warped
archae86 wrote: The New York
)
One thing they showed during the Bond movie was ALOT of very large heavy gears and machinery and alot of steps so I'm sure it was built long before those things could be minaturizeed like now.
Warped wrote:Goodbye
)
The video of the actual collapse available at that link is stunning. Don't stop watching at the 50 second mark thinking it is all over save a little dust movement. About 55 seconds in the view switches to live video from a drone which is initially a tight shot in on cables at the very moment they start letting go.
Amazing.
archae86 wrote:Warped
)
The "Video: Footage of Collapse Arecibo Observatory" clearly shows the cables on one affected tower snapping. The tower in question (left side video image at about the 9 or 10 second mark generates a popping sound. The cable bundle attached to that tower becomes blurred under the sudden release of weight and the receiver unit just drops. It does seem that the weight was excessive. Being where it is, i.e. surrounded by water I would suggest that it required constant maintenance to keep the "rust away". The question is "did the cable fail or did the tower fail?"
robl wrote: archae86
)
I would guess alot of both, they have also had several hurricanes go thru Puerto Rico in 2020 alone and then add in the BIG one a couple years ago when Trump threw paper towels at people who had water inside their homes and there probably was a whole lot of deferred maintanance going on there.