Comments:Searching for asteroids, extraterrestrial life a little more rocky: Budget cuts threaten to close Arecibo, world's largest radio telescope
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
What are those fools in the american administration thinking?! They spend billions of dollars on weapons, and yet they won't fund one of the most important scientific tools they have at their disposal. Do the really need a new 500 million dollar bomb, or do they need to fund the Arecibo for the next 20 years? Ever since the republicans took over, the american government dumbed down by a few notches. Posterity will remember the foolish decisions this administration has done when they have to do last minute catching up. American attitude: "screw science and discovery, unless it makes us rich." Oh God, why are those fools so shortsighted!
Well send a letter to your beloved democratic congress, they seem to being doing their job--184.108.40.206 18:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"Currently, the NSF funds the operations of Arecibo with just over US$10 million every year. By 2011 they plan to drastically cut that funding to only $4 million a year ... the United States House of Representatives passed a bill that would authorize NASA to spend at least 2 million dollars ... to fund portions of Arecibo until 2009. But that still leaves more than half of the loss to be recovered"
- The loss was 10 (original funding) - 4 (current funding) = 6 million (loss in funding). Out of that 6 million, 2 million has been temporarily recovered. 6-2 = 4million still to be recovered. 4 (current loss) ÷ 6 (original loss) = 4/6 = 2/3 = 66.7% loss remaining. 66.7% > 50%, so the remaining loss is "more than half". It's somewhat confuddled reasoning, but it isn't actually wrong:-). Gopher65talk 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a gradual slide to end of empire..
When countries start to gut important basic science programs because the demands of empire and natural disasters overwhelm their resources, especially when all the research that was first established in it's heyday is cut back or closed down, then you can start to see the end comming over the horizon. Part of the current problem is that most high-tech manufacturing jobs are now done in the far east and soon to be done in India and other countries too.
Part of the problem accellerating this decay process is that the costs and demands of waging on going wars that drain the state treasury...this has been repeated many times in history..the past and is made worse now-a-days by the fact that most states in the US have some military/industrial manufacturing component established in these states assures that the constant hemorrage of scarce resources continues to be wasted on war activities.
It is ironic that we now are developing tools and techniques to finding distant earths and listem to other civilizations and yet basic funding of existing tools now drying up?
Perhaps it's time to pass the torch to china and india, or , if not that, get real with the funding of basic science programs. G. Salter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Budget cuts threaten to close Arecibo
When the project is such a positive and hopeful one, it's a crime to kill it with budget cuts. There goes the hope of a generation, and all the projects that will see their quality fall because of a lack of support from a government that doesn't support the advancement of science into the future.
My one hope left, is that the people involved, participants, and followers will vote accordingly.
- The idiots in power believe they can pray an asteroid won't hit us. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Aricebo budget woes......
Compared to the budgets of so many other ongoing projets it seems silly to even consider closing Arecibo. Maybe we just go back to the drawing board and heavily fund a new generation of Folsom points to insure our future on the planet?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElderD (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Possible alternatives to Arecibo.
I see no mention of the Lovell Telescope at Jodrell Bank, UK (www.jb.man.ac.uk) or the MERLIN Array (www.merlin.ac.uk) which includes the Lovell Telescopes among others. The Lovell Telescope is 76 metres in diameter and is fully movable, which Arecibo isn't, while the Array has a separation of 270 kilometres.
Is there any reason these can't be used?
- Arecibo is 305 metres in diameter, which means that it has a light collecting area of ~73000m^2. Lovell = 4560m^2. Total light collecting area of the VLA is ~13000m^2 (that's all 27 dishes combined). Arecibo has 16 times the LCA of Lovell and ~5.5 times the LCA of the VLA. Now Light collecting area obviously isn't the only measure of importance, but it is a major one (baseline and tracking ability being the other two major ones for the purpose of this particular comparison). And frankly, even the VLA FAILS massively in comparison to Arecibo, never mind an almost useless wee little baby dish like Lovell. I'd be perfectly happy to close Arecibo IF there were something comparable around, or planned (for replacement). There isn't, so I'm not. Gopher65talk 23:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Small town cheap
It does not surprise me that bureaucraps always use funding ti kill projects. These fellows lack vision and as such would not spend a nickle to save a dime. Closing Arecibo makes no sense. I would suggest that someone is driving an agenda to close it down to meet their own needs.
10 million to run it for a year. Given the data it produces, the use benefit exceeds dollar value spent each year. The people who want to close it need to be scrutinized so as to find exactly why. There is more than this than meets the eye. Why would they close the most sensitive telescope leaving only 100 meter dishes which are less sensitive. "that dog just doesnt hunt" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)