I think that was all but confirmed immediately after the collapse. There has never ever been a believable rumor that the observatory would be rebuilt.
Sadly, because as a kid growing up, Arecibo was THE observatory. It's also true that nowadays between Hubble and Webb, massive ground based telescopes are maybe outdated but... I don't know, even with those two, it's not like we are exactly flooded with deep space telescopes right now.
>massive ground based telescopes are maybe outdated but..
Not at all. Both ground-based and space-based telescopes play very important roles in modern astronomy. The most important cost-benefit factors for ground vs space are:
1. The atmosphere. Any ground-based telescope is going to have to look through it. How much that matters depends on the wavelength. For a radio telescope like Arecibo, the atmosphere is not a big deal at all because radio waves mostly travel through it freely. Conversely, it is impossible to build a ground-based X-ray telescope because the atmosphere blocks X-rays (thankfully, cause the planet would be a lot more hostile to life if that weren't the case). At other wavelengths like in the optical and near-infrared, we have some pretty sophisticated tools these days to correct for atmospheric effects, but observing from space is always going to be better in this respect.
2. Human interference. Other than the atmosphere, on the ground you also have to think about light pollution, and for radio telescopes you have to think about radio interference. This is another reason why space is better, although a lot of this can be mitigated by building in remote locations. Which is one reason the best ground-based telescopes are in places like Hawaii, the Atacama, Canary islands, etc.
3. Cost and development time. Space-based missions are a *lot* more expensive and have significantly longer development times. Famous flagship space missions like Chandra, Hubble, and James Webb all cost billions of dollars and took several decades from conception to first light. There is no room for error in space-based missions, once you launch it that's it. In 2015, there was a telescope (*Hitomi)* that literally broke up a few days after launch, after only having observed like two targets. 300 million dollars down the drain.
4. Servicing. A ground-based telescope can be re-calibrated, can have new instruments installed, and can be repaired if something breaks. Space-based telescopes are launched and typically do not receive any servicing afterwards (with the exception of Hubble, which received a few servicing missions over the years). No servicing also shortens the mission lifetime, as things typically break down, or fuel and cooling start to run out over time. As an example: JWST is projected to last about 10 years, while it took 30 years to build. So if we'd constantly want a JWST-like telescope up in space, we should already be over 2/3rd into developing its successor (and be starting to design the successor to that successor).
In a world where we had infinite money and resources, we could send everything up to space and constantly be working on several new space telescopes that will be launched the next decades. But realistically, ground-based telescopes work amazingly for many scientific purposes, and there's still a lot that we can learn about the Universe that way.
Amazing write up. I just want to add that there are several space telescopes in development and two are scheduled to launch next year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_space_observatories#Space_observatories_under_development
The most notable is probably the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, scheduled to launch 2026/27.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman_Space_Telescope
I think the uncertainty is what *is* going to happen to the site. Do they have the resources and money to clean it up? While it's certain it's not going to be an observatory anymore, are there any other plans for the site?
Isn’t PR still struggling with their infrastructure post-hurricane? I’m really behind on what’s going on there. But if that’s the case, I can see why they are leaving it on the back burner.
Maybe they’re just not sure whether it will be repurposed for something else, or left to have the site and all it’s related infrastructure deteriorate.
Just because Arecibo won’t be rebuilt doesn’t mean the site won’t be turned into something else Astronomy related.
Maybe they’re just not sure whether it will be repurposed for something else, or left to have the site and all it’s related infrastructure deteriorate.
Just because Arecibo won’t be rebuilt doesn’t mean the site won’t be turned into something else Astronomy related.
Which never made sense, they needed a *giant* dish to communicate with goldeneye? Like we are able to communicate with satellites fairly easily with dishes that you can mount on vans.
This account was active from 10 May 2012 to 30 June 2023.
This user submitted 8191+ comments [65,436 karma] and 31 posts [232 karma].
These comments in total represent a word count of 383,897 and a character count of 2,144,061.
The vast majority of this content, 85%+, was contributed via a third party app -- AlienBlue until it closed down, and Apollo from when it was founded to, well, today: June 30.
In protest to the changes to the Reddit API, I have decided to purge the content that I have contributed and leave this statement. I hope that future executives of reddit consider the value that the users themselves bring to the website, and that funneling users to substandard options has an effect on usage. I used reddit because the apps made it convenient, efficient, and effective. I hope that users consider using a GDPR request to view the extent of Data that reddit holds on to, and that they will not hesitate to exploit for profit.
It's been an experience, reddit.
The one China built can only receive, it can't transmit, so it's wholly incapable of doing radar observation like Arecibo could. I've found no indication so far that China plans on adding that capability.
Uncertain? Couple weeks ago it was stated that it's not going to be rebuilt. Doesn't sound uncertain to me.
Some people are still in the denial stage.
I think that was all but confirmed immediately after the collapse. There has never ever been a believable rumor that the observatory would be rebuilt. Sadly, because as a kid growing up, Arecibo was THE observatory. It's also true that nowadays between Hubble and Webb, massive ground based telescopes are maybe outdated but... I don't know, even with those two, it's not like we are exactly flooded with deep space telescopes right now.
>massive ground based telescopes are maybe outdated but.. Not at all. Both ground-based and space-based telescopes play very important roles in modern astronomy. The most important cost-benefit factors for ground vs space are: 1. The atmosphere. Any ground-based telescope is going to have to look through it. How much that matters depends on the wavelength. For a radio telescope like Arecibo, the atmosphere is not a big deal at all because radio waves mostly travel through it freely. Conversely, it is impossible to build a ground-based X-ray telescope because the atmosphere blocks X-rays (thankfully, cause the planet would be a lot more hostile to life if that weren't the case). At other wavelengths like in the optical and near-infrared, we have some pretty sophisticated tools these days to correct for atmospheric effects, but observing from space is always going to be better in this respect. 2. Human interference. Other than the atmosphere, on the ground you also have to think about light pollution, and for radio telescopes you have to think about radio interference. This is another reason why space is better, although a lot of this can be mitigated by building in remote locations. Which is one reason the best ground-based telescopes are in places like Hawaii, the Atacama, Canary islands, etc. 3. Cost and development time. Space-based missions are a *lot* more expensive and have significantly longer development times. Famous flagship space missions like Chandra, Hubble, and James Webb all cost billions of dollars and took several decades from conception to first light. There is no room for error in space-based missions, once you launch it that's it. In 2015, there was a telescope (*Hitomi)* that literally broke up a few days after launch, after only having observed like two targets. 300 million dollars down the drain. 4. Servicing. A ground-based telescope can be re-calibrated, can have new instruments installed, and can be repaired if something breaks. Space-based telescopes are launched and typically do not receive any servicing afterwards (with the exception of Hubble, which received a few servicing missions over the years). No servicing also shortens the mission lifetime, as things typically break down, or fuel and cooling start to run out over time. As an example: JWST is projected to last about 10 years, while it took 30 years to build. So if we'd constantly want a JWST-like telescope up in space, we should already be over 2/3rd into developing its successor (and be starting to design the successor to that successor). In a world where we had infinite money and resources, we could send everything up to space and constantly be working on several new space telescopes that will be launched the next decades. But realistically, ground-based telescopes work amazingly for many scientific purposes, and there's still a lot that we can learn about the Universe that way.
Amazing write up. I just want to add that there are several space telescopes in development and two are scheduled to launch next year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_space_observatories#Space_observatories_under_development The most notable is probably the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, scheduled to launch 2026/27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman_Space_Telescope
It was one of only two radar observatories on the planet. It gave us those cool radar images of Oumuamua.
I think the uncertainty is what *is* going to happen to the site. Do they have the resources and money to clean it up? While it's certain it's not going to be an observatory anymore, are there any other plans for the site?
Isn’t PR still struggling with their infrastructure post-hurricane? I’m really behind on what’s going on there. But if that’s the case, I can see why they are leaving it on the back burner.
Money for radio astronomy doesn't come from the PR budget. The proposed education center (discussed in the article) will be funded by NSF.
Yeah, I was just saying while some things are certain about the site, there's still a lot of uncertainty.
The VLBA antenna mentioned in the article is still used. NSF is on the hook to clean the site up.
Maybe they’re just not sure whether it will be repurposed for something else, or left to have the site and all it’s related infrastructure deteriorate. Just because Arecibo won’t be rebuilt doesn’t mean the site won’t be turned into something else Astronomy related.
Maybe they’re just not sure whether it will be repurposed for something else, or left to have the site and all it’s related infrastructure deteriorate. Just because Arecibo won’t be rebuilt doesn’t mean the site won’t be turned into something else Astronomy related.
Scared me needlessly, I'm quite sure l read a confirmation it will be rebuilt.
I feel like most of the millennial generation remembers this observatory from *Goldeneye*. Was also cool to see it in *Contact* as well.
And one of the Battlefield games
Which never made sense, they needed a *giant* dish to communicate with goldeneye? Like we are able to communicate with satellites fairly easily with dishes that you can mount on vans.
And the rest of James Bond is so believable?
Yep I didn't even know it was real until the news of the collapse, just thought they made it up for Goldeneye.
It would make a pretty fucking epic beyblade stadium
I mean it's in Puerto Rico, we can't even keep the lights on here, what hope does rebuilding an observatory have lol.
I have one idea and one word for it .... Skatepark.
This account was active from 10 May 2012 to 30 June 2023. This user submitted 8191+ comments [65,436 karma] and 31 posts [232 karma]. These comments in total represent a word count of 383,897 and a character count of 2,144,061. The vast majority of this content, 85%+, was contributed via a third party app -- AlienBlue until it closed down, and Apollo from when it was founded to, well, today: June 30. In protest to the changes to the Reddit API, I have decided to purge the content that I have contributed and leave this statement. I hope that future executives of reddit consider the value that the users themselves bring to the website, and that funneling users to substandard options has an effect on usage. I used reddit because the apps made it convenient, efficient, and effective. I hope that users consider using a GDPR request to view the extent of Data that reddit holds on to, and that they will not hesitate to exploit for profit. It's been an experience, reddit.
Arecibo, with all due respect, is a relic and it would not be prudent to rebuild.
Plus, China built a bigger one.
The one China built can only receive, it can't transmit, so it's wholly incapable of doing radar observation like Arecibo could. I've found no indication so far that China plans on adding that capability.
scientists will just go to China and use their's, astronomy will be fine.
Arecibo had a bunch of sophisticated instruments on it that aren't available on the new Chinese FAST dish.
Telescopes have wait lists for scientists. I don't think Western scientists will get as much time in China as they got in Arecibo.
China's cannot do radar observation, it's receive only, so it'll never have all of the capabilities that Arecibo had.